By the Court.—Heard Sri Vinay Shanker, learned counsel for appellants, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent/Ayodhya Singh who was working in the Oriental Bank of Commerce has been dismissed from services by an order dated 25.7.2002. Thereafter, he filed an appeal, dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 12.12.2002.

3. Dismissal and appellate order have been challenged by the respondent/Ayodhya Singh by fling Writ Petition No. 1031 (SS) of 2003 (Ayodhya Singh v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi), allowed by order dated 12.7.2005, relevant portion quoted as under :

“In view of the above, the order of dismissal dated 25.7.2002 and the appellate order dated 12.12.2002 are not sustainable and the same are quashed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Corut while concluding his arguments that the petitioenr had already attained the age of superannuation and now de novo departntal enquiry cannot be held agaisnt him. He had not caused any loss to the Bank.

In these circumstances, this Corut cannot leave it open to the opposite parties to hold fresh enquiry