Order 1. The petitioner was a Staff Officer in Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Patna. He is said to have submitted his resignation on 26.10.2004 which was accepted on the same date i.e. 26.10.2004 by the Managing Director of the Bank, who has been impleaded as Respondent No. 5 in the present writ application. 2. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 26.10.2004 communicating acceptance of the letter of resignation, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15007 of 2004. This Court dealing with the provision of Regulation 32 of Staff Regulations of the Bank came to a finding that there was no evidence on record to show that the said communication dated 26.10.2004 was approved by the Board as contemplated under Regulation 32. Therefore, so that the management as well as the petitioner could get a fair opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the Board by this Court vide an order dated 26.07.2007 with a direction to the Board to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after examining his submission, coupled with the records which are readily available in the Bank and take a decision in this regard and communicate to the petitioner. 3. The Respondents, in the light of the said order dated 07.08.2007 have taken a decision on 18.02.2008. Pursuant to which an office order dated 02.08.2007 has been issued by the Managing Director and has been communicated Annexure-23 to the writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to confine his submission only to the effect that since the Managing Director did not have the authority to accept the petitioner’s resignation, the effective date of his resignation should be treated as date on which the Board approved the resignation. 5. There is one fact which can be taken note of at this stage itself. Had the petitioner been in service, he would have retired with effect from 31.05.2005. The age of retirement of employees of the Bank was enhanced to 60 years and in that case, he would have superannuated with effect from 31.05.2007. 6. 5. There is one fact which can be taken note of at this stage itself. Had the petitioner been in service, he would have retired with effect from 31.05.2005. The age of retirement of employees of the Bank was enhanced to 60 years and in that case, he would have superannuated with effect from 31.05.2007. 6. In order to appreciate the legal position, it would be proper to quote Regulation 32 of Staff Regulation which has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the present writ application, relevant portion of which is as follows:- “(i) In case of employees holding a post on probation and appointed directly to it, one week’s notice is necessary. In case of confirmed employees, three months’ notice by superior staff and one month’s notice by others is necessary before leaving service. An employee leaving service without giving the notice, as laid down here, or before expiry of the notice shall be liable to pay to the Bank as compensation an amount equal to his pay for the period, or unexpired period of the notice.” (ii) The following authorities are empowered to accept resignations Superior staff Board Ministerial Staff Managing Director Lower staff Secretary” 7. Evidently, as per Anenxure-11, the Board is empowered to accept resignation whereas in the present case the Managing Director had accepted the resignation. 8. This Court vide order dated 02.08.2007 had asked the Board to examine the petitioner’s submission and take a decision. It was also mentioned that in case it was held that resignation was not in accordance with Regulation of the Bank, the Board would be free to set aside the order dated 26.10.2004. 9. From the Resolution of the Board, it appears that Board relied upon Clause 64(g) of the Bye-laws of the Bank justifying the action of the Managing Director in accepting the petitioner’s resignation. Clause 64(g) of the Bye-laws reads thus:- “64. Subject to control of the Board, the Managing Director Shall- a) ....... b) ....... c) ....... d) …… e) ....... f) ....... g) anticipate Board’s decision in matters that cannot wait for a Board’s meeting without prejudice to the interest of the Bank, provided that in all such matters the Chairman’s approval, if possible, shall be taken and all matters decided by the Managing Director in anticipation of Board’s approval shall be brought before the next meeting of the Board for confirmation.” 10. Evidently, the Managing Director had the duty to anticipate the Board’s decision in such matters that could not wait for a Board’s meeting without prejudice to the interest of the Bank, provided that in all such matters the Chairman’s approval shall have to be taken if possible and all matters decided by Managing Director in acceptance of Board’s approval shall have to be brought in meeting of the Board for confirmation. 11. Thus, as per the Clause 64(g), the Managing Director was not individually authorized to exercise the power under Regulation 32 of the Staff Regulations which vested only in the Board. However, the Managing Director could have accepted the resignation in anticipation of the Board’s decision but he ought to have had the approval of the Chairman and was required to bring the decision of acceptance of resignation before the next meeting of Board for confirmation. This was not done. The matter was placed before the Board only after this Court directed the matter to be placed before the Board vide order dated 07.08.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15007 of 2004. The Board’s decision therefore, in my opinion, is not sustainable to the extent it has approved the decision of the Managing Director to accept the petitioner’s resignation with effect from the date of the resignation i.e. 26.10.2004. The letter accepting petitioner’s resignation dated 26.10.2004 therefore, cannot be sustained and cannot be said to have been validly approved by the Board in its decision dated 18.02.2008. 12. This application is accordingly allowed. The letter dated 26.10.2004 is quashed. The Resolution of the Board dated 18.02.2008 is also quashed. 13. However, there shall no order for payment of backwages in the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner would have otherwise superannuated from service with effect from 31.05.2005 as per age of superannuation prescribed on the date of submission of his resignation. Further, there is no statement in the writ application that petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period. Said period however, shall be counted for the purpose of calculating his retrial benefits. 14. This application is allowed accordingly with the observations as above.