WP(C) 407/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner, who has since retired from service of the respondent-Ban k with effect from 31.12.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation, is aggriev ed by the Annexure-1 and 2 orders dated 28.12.2009 and 30.12.2009 respectively. By the first order, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on c ertain charges. By the second order, it has been notified that irrespective of superannuation of the petitioner from service, he would be deemed to be in servi ce facilitating completion of the departmental proceeding. Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a reference t o Annexure-5 judgment and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) N o.1781/2009, submits that the aforesaid course of action adopted by the respond ent-Bank is applicable only in case of pending departmental proceeding and not i n respect of initiation of fresh departmental proceeding. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Apex Bank was requested to obtai n instructions in the matter. He has produced the records, on perusal of which, what is revealed is that the Board of Directors has not adopted any resolution t owards initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and that th e charge against the petitioner has been drawn up under the orders of the Managi ng Director of the Bank. Mr. Dey, learned counsel submits that even if no appr oval of the Board of Directors towards issuance of the charge sheet is there, sa me can be obtained ex post facto. Considering the matter in its entirety and in view of the revelation from the re cords that no approval has been taken towards issuance of the charge sheet cou pled with the fact that the related charge sheet is also not against any pendi ng proceeding, but has been issued by way of a fresh proceeding, I am of the co nsidered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in terms of the a foresaid judgment and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.178 1/2009. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 28.12.2009 and 30.12.200 9 (Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition) stand set aside and quashed. Conseque ntly, the petitioner will be entitled to admissible retirement benefits in accor dance with law. Writ petition is disposed of.