IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1820 OF 2005 1. NIRU PARAG, WIFE OF LATE DR.BRAHAMDEO PRASAD SINGH 2. PREMJIT KUMAR, SON OF LATE DR. BRAHAMDEO PRASAD SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILALGE PANI KAMALA, POLICE STATION MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR ……………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS *********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. BIBHUTI PANDEY, SR. ADV. MR. J. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. AMARENDRA KUMAR, AC TO GP 8 **************** 5 14/03/2011 The original petitioner Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh died during the pendency of this writ application and the present application is being pursued by his wife and son. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The original petitioner Late Dr. Singh was aggrieved by the order as contained in Anneuxre-9 by which he was dismissed from services on the basis of a departmental proceedings initiated against him. The charges against the original petitioner was that he had ordered medicines from M.S.D., Kolkata over 2 and above the sanctioned amount and that the medicines were not received in the Health Centers. The enquiry report is contained in Annexure- 6. The allegation is that he had made an order of medicines worth Rs. 76,13,151/-. However during the enquiry, it has been stated in paragraph 37 that the vouchers related to the petitioner were numbered as 115/9/92, 116/9/92, 119/9/92 and 327/11/92 and as such the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the allegations were found to be partly proved. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raises two issues. Firstly, it is said that the original petitioner was not given the sufficient opportunities to pursue the documents etc. before he could reply to the show cause and subsequently, it is submitted that since the Enquiry Officer has found that the allegations are only partly proved, the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. As far as the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has discussed in details all the materials and facts, eventually the original petitioner was also able to pursue all the material and documents and give a reply to the show cause, which would be apparent from paragraph 16 of the enquiry report. The second submission made on behalf of the 3 petitioners that the punishment is too harsh cannot be allowed on the ground that where there is a financial irregularity alleged, the amount involved is hardly relevant, when it involves spending of public money and financial irregularity. Generally, it cannot be a factor to be considered while deciding the quantum of punishment. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )