Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The Management of Indian Overseas Bank is the appellant and aggrieved by the order dated 13. 2008, made in W.P.No.49012 of 2006 under which, the appellant was directed to settle the Gratuity and Provident Fund to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. .2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as follows:- .The Respondent joined the services of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, Chennai-2, as a Clerk in the year 1981. He was promoted to the officer cadre Scale-I in the year 1987 and was further promoted to Scale-II in the year 1995. In the year 1998, he was promoted to Scale-III and got further promotion to Scale-IV in the year 2002. According to the Respondent, his service record is excellent and therefore, he was selected for Overseas Assignment and worked at Bangkok from 1997 to 2000. The Respondent had also got several appreciation letters for his excellent performance. 3. While the Respondent was working as a Chief Manager of the Nungambakkam Branch of Bharat Overseas Bank, he tendered his resignation by means of a letter dated 4. 2006 to the first appellant through his branch. In the resignation letter, it has been stated that the Respondent is tendering his resignation due to compelling domestic and personal reasons. 4. The Respondent has also prayed for the waiver of notice period of three months and in the alternative, requested the Management to adjust three months salary out of his terminal benefits. Since there was no response forthcoming till 14. 2006, the Respondent handed over the charge to the Senior Manager of Nungambakkam Branch and it was also intimated to the second appellant vide letter dated 14. 2006. 5. The second appellant herein in response to the said letter, sent a telegram dated 14. 2006 to the Respondent herein stating that his request for resignation was under process and he was directed to report for duty immediately. It is also alleged that he has deserted the branch. 6. The Respondent submitted his reply dated 24. 2006. 5. The second appellant herein in response to the said letter, sent a telegram dated 14. 2006 to the Respondent herein stating that his request for resignation was under process and he was directed to report for duty immediately. It is also alleged that he has deserted the branch. 6. The Respondent submitted his reply dated 24. 2006, stating that he has handed over the charge to the Senior Manager of the branch and that he was not holding any specific charge or keys and hence the question of deserting the branch does not arise at all. .7. The Respondent did not receive any communication from the Bank and hence, he sent a letter dated 7. 2006 to the second appellant requesting them to settle his terminal benefit forthwith and it is also indicated in the said letter, that long silence till date amounts to waiver of notice period. The said letter was followed by a reminder dated 9. 2006 and even for that letter, there was no response forthcoming. 8. Therefore, the Respondent came forward to file the writ petition stating that the terminal benefits are payable to him immediately on submission of resignation and since the charge was taken over from him and he was relieved on 14. 2006, his resignation came into effect immediately. It is further stated that the terminal benefits are withheld without any valid reasons and therefore he is entitled to receive the terminal benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14. 2006 till payment. 9. The appellants who were arrayed as Respondents in this writ petition had filed the counter. In the counter, it is alleged that on 14. 2006 the Senior Manager of the Nungambakkam Branch of Bharat Overseas Bank received a letter dated 14. 2006 from the Respondent stating that he has submitted his resignation on 4. 2006 and requesting for his relievement immediately. Without waiting for the relieving order, the Respondent had handed over the charge to the Senior Manager on 14. 2006 and the same is in violation of the Rule 27 of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules. 10. On 14. 2006, a telegram was sent to the Respondent advising him to report for duty immediately failing which, the said act will be viewed very seriously. The Respondent has sent a reply dated 24. 2006 and the same is in violation of the Rule 27 of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules. 10. On 14. 2006, a telegram was sent to the Respondent advising him to report for duty immediately failing which, the said act will be viewed very seriously. The Respondent has sent a reply dated 24. 2006 stating that since he has offered three months pay in lieu of notice, he is to be relieved immediately. 11. As the Respondent in spite of notice did not join duty, a charge memo dated 26. 2006 was issued to him charging him with misconduct for violation of Rule-6 and 27 of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules. 12. The appellants had also noted some irregularity in the operation of loan account relating to M/s. Sun Animation Studio Private Limited and M/s. Trust Global Associates and hence two show cause notices dated 7. 2006 were sent to him for his response. The charge memo and the show cause notices were returned with an endorsement "Door Locked" and subsequently, an intimation was also sent to him. 13. In the counter, a specific stand has been taken that since the petitioner has not served the notice period, resignation/voluntary retirement do not take into effect and unless and until the voluntary retirement/resignation is accepted, he deemed to be continued in service. Therefore, the question of settlement of terminal benefits does not arise and hence, the Appellants/Respondents in the writ petition prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. A supplementary affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Appellants/Respondents in the writ petition stating that the Government of India by a Notification dated 9. 2006 gave approval for Indian Overseas Bank to acquire the entire share capital of the Bharat Overseas Bank and on acquisition of shares which started after 9. 2006 was completed on 112. 2006. Therefore, the writ petition against private Bank is not maintainable. 115. 2006 gave approval for Indian Overseas Bank to acquire the entire share capital of the Bharat Overseas Bank and on acquisition of shares which started after 9. 2006 was completed on 112. 2006. Therefore, the writ petition against private Bank is not maintainable. 115. A reply affidavit was filed by the Respondent/Petitioner in the writ petition stating that the post of Chairman is a tenure post and the tenure for a period of 6 years on the retirement of Chairman on the expiry of the tenure period, the Board of Directors appointed a committee of three Directors to discharge the functions of the Chairman until a new Chairman was appointed and they have duly discharged the functions of the Chairman. It is further stated that a new Chairman assumed office in the month of November 2006 and neither the committee nor the new Chairman took any decision on the letter of resignation submitted by the Respondent. It is further averred that after the take over of Bharat Overseas Bank by the Indian Overseas Bank, the service of the Respondent ceased to exist as per their letter dated 23. 2007. The disciplinary proceedings which was not initiated by the Chairman/the Committee is unsustainable as they do not have jurisdiction to initiate such an action. 116. After take over, the Indian Overseas Bank has filed an application for impleading which was ordered and they have also filed their counter stating that by virtue of Clause 14 of the Scheme of merger, it is entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Bharat Overseas Bank and hence the request for the settlement of terminal benefits cannot be considered. 117. The learned Judge after taking into consideration the rival submissions, held that when the writ petitioner/Respondent herein submitted his resignation on 4. 2006, there was no Chairman as he demitted his office on 4. 2006. The charge memo was issued only on 26. 2006 by the Senior General Manager and at no point of time, the resignation letter was placed before the Chairman. It is further held that though a new Chairman assumed office during November 2006, no action has been taken in respect of the letter of resignation submitted by the Respondent herein. 2006. The charge memo was issued only on 26. 2006 by the Senior General Manager and at no point of time, the resignation letter was placed before the Chairman. It is further held that though a new Chairman assumed office during November 2006, no action has been taken in respect of the letter of resignation submitted by the Respondent herein. The learned Judge further held that after the merger of Bharat Overseas Bank with Indian Overseas Bank, there was no Rule which enable the appellants herein to continue the disciplinary action in respect of the ex-employees of the Bharat Overseas Bank and hence, it must be deemed that such a disciplinary proceedings are lapsed and cannot be continued without there being, any legal basis for the same. As the first appellant herein having ceased existing and that the third Respondent has not taken any disciplinary action, the learned Judge held that the writ petitioner/Respondent is entitled to the relief and therefore, directed the appellants herein to settle the gratuity and Provident Fund to the Respondent with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment. 118. The management of the Indian Overseas Bank, aggrieved by the same, had preferred this writ appeal. 119. Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, for the appellants and Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Ajay Khose, for the Respondent. 120. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as at the time of filing of the writ petition, the management was under the control of Bharat Overseas Bank which was a private entity and in the absence of any public duty on their part, the Respondent herein cannot maintain the writ petition. It is further contended that as per Bharat Overseas Bank Service Regulations-13(ii), an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, shall not resign from his service in the Bank without the prior approval in writing of the Chairman and sub-clause (iii) of Regulation 13 states that for the purpose of this rule, disciplinary proceedings shall be treated as pending against an Officer until final orders are passed on them. Admittedly, no orders have been passed by the management on the resignation letter submitted by the Respondent and therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioner was relieved from service so as to get the Provident Fund and Gratuity. Admittedly, no orders have been passed by the management on the resignation letter submitted by the Respondent and therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioner was relieved from service so as to get the Provident Fund and Gratuity. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that with regard to his desertion of duty, charge memo was issued on 26. 2006 and in respect of irregularity in operation of accounts relating to M/s. Sun Animation Studio Private Limited and M/s. Trust Global, show cause notices were issued on 7. 2006 calling for his explanation. Therefore, in any event, pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the show cause notices, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned the post. Explanation to Regulation 13 reads that " A show cause notice or order of suspension or charge sheet signed by the Chairman and put on a course of transmission prior to or during the period of notice will be sufficient compliance with the requirements of clause (iii). The said Regulation was amended by means of Board Resolution dated 30.11.2000, wherein it has been provided that in the case of Scale IV Officers, instead of Chairman, General Manager became the disciplinary authority and the Chairman became the Appellate Authority. Since the General Manager has issued a charge memo on 26. 2006 within three months of the notice period, the resignation does not take into effect and consequently the settlement of terminal benefits does not arise for consideration. It is the further submission on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition as framed is not maintainable and therefore, prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders passed in the writ petition. 21. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the relief sought for in the writ petition is for the settlement of terminal benefits which is a statutory liability caused upon the appellant management and since the appellant has committed breach of statutory duty in not settling the terminal benefits, writ petition is maintainable. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that since the resignation has not been accepted within the time stipulated, it must be deemed to have been accepted and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that since the resignation has not been accepted within the time stipulated, it must be deemed to have been accepted and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. The learned senior counsel also took this Court to the Service Rules and Regulations of Bharat Overseas Bank and also the impugned orders passed in the writ petition and would submit that the reasons assigned by the learned Judge in allowing the writ petition are sustainable in law and on facts and there is no infirmity in the said order. .22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2003 (1) LLN page 372-K.S.P.Dora vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited and 2008(3) LLN page 122-UCO Bank and another vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, and would submit that in the absence of any acceptance, the Respondent must be deemed to have been resigned on the date of his resignation letter and after the cessation of Master and Servant relationship between the management and the petitioner, disciplinary action cannot be taken up. 23. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. 24. As regards the maintainability of writ petition, though at the time of filing the writ petition, the management and affairs was with the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, during the pendency of the writ petition, the management became vested with the appellant herein and therefore, the cause of action subsists and hence this Court holds that writ petition is maintainable. .25. A perusal of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers Service Regulations particularly Regulation No.13 would disclose that an Officer in the permanent establishment, shall not resign from service of the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to do so and the period of such notice required shall be three months and it shall be addressed to the Chairman. Discretion was given to the Chairman to permit an officer to resign without such notice or reduce the period of such notice. Discretion was given to the Chairman to permit an officer to resign without such notice or reduce the period of such notice. When disciplinary proceedings are pending against the officer, he shall not resign from his service in the Bank, without the prior approval in writing of the Chairman and any notice of resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not take effect, unless it is accepted by the Chairman. The said Rule also clarify that disciplinary proceedings shall be treated as pending against an officer until final orders are passed on them. Explanation to Regulation 13 says that a show cause notice or order of suspension or charge sheet signed by the Chairman and put on a course of transmission prior to or during the period of notice, will be sufficient compliance with the requirements of clause (iii). The Service Regulations came to be amended subsequently during November 2000, wherein it was recommended that in respect of the officers in Scale IV and V, Senior General Manager will be the disciplinary authority and the Chairman will be the Appellate Authority. 26. The Respondent submitted his letter of resignation on 4. 2006 requesting the management of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited to accept his request and relieve him with immediate effect. In the said letter, he has also indicated that if the request is not considered favourably, he surrenders his three months salary in lieu of the notice period and authorised the bank to recover three months salary from the terminal benefits payable to him. It was followed by a reminder dated 14. 2006, wherein the Respondent has stated that he is not holding any specific charge or keys and he has handed over the formal charge to the Senior Manager on 14. 2006 before proceeding to medical check up as he was suffering with acute Asthma. The Respondent once again made a request, requesting that the relieving order may be sent to his residential address. The then management in response to the said letter, had sent a telegram dated 14. 2006 to the Respondent stating that pending process of his request for his voluntary retirement or resignation as the case may be, his action of deserting the branch is unauthorised and not in order and therefore, he was instructed to report for duty immediately; otherwise the matter will be viewed seriously. 27. 2006 to the Respondent stating that pending process of his request for his voluntary retirement or resignation as the case may be, his action of deserting the branch is unauthorised and not in order and therefore, he was instructed to report for duty immediately; otherwise the matter will be viewed seriously. 27. The Respondent in response to the telegram dated 14. 2006, sent a reply on 24. 2006 stating that he has already handed over the charge to the Senior Manager Scale III on 14. 2006 itself and he is not holding any specific charge or keys. It is further stated that due to certain extreme domestic and personal reasons, he is not able to continue in service and therefore, he requested the management to send the relieving order to his residential address. .28. Since the Respondent has not chosen to join the service in spite of the telegram dated 14. 2006, the then management initiated disciplinary action by issuing a charge memo dated 26. 2006 under Rule 40 of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1990. The said charge memo was signed by the Senior General Manager, who was acting as the disciplinary authority. On 7. 2006 two show cause notices were sent to the Respondent relating to the accounts of M/s. Sun Animation Studio Private Limited and Trust Global Associates stating that there has been laxity in monitoring the account and also irregularity in operating the account and therefore the Respondent was called upon to submit his explanation to the said show .cause notices. It was also followed by a charge memo dated 112. 2006 relating to the alleged irregularities in the operation of the accounts relating to the above said companies. 29. The Respondent within a short span of time after the receipt of the above said charge memo, has filed this writ petition which came to be allowed. 30. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) has issued a Notification dated 13. 2007 wherein it has been stated that the merger between Bharat Overseas and Indian Overseas Bank shall be effected before 33. 30. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) has issued a Notification dated 13. 2007 wherein it has been stated that the merger between Bharat Overseas and Indian Overseas Bank shall be effected before 33. 2007 and in exercise of powers conferred under the Banking Companies (Classification and approval of Undertakings) Act, 1980, the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, had framed a Scheme called Bharat Overseas Bank (Transfer of Undertaking to the Indian Overseas Bank) Scheme 2007. As per Clause 14 on and from the Effective Date, all suits, actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the Transferor Banking Company pending and/or arising on or before the Effective Date shall be continued and be enforced by or against the Transferee Bank as effectively as if the same had been filed by, pending and/or arising against the Transferee Bank. Chapter IV of the Scheme speaks about the rights and obligations of the employees of the Transferee Bank. As per clause 3 of Chapter IV, "any officer or employee of the transferor bank who does not want to hold his office or service in the transferee bank under clauses (1) and (2) above, shall be entitled to leave his office or service on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him, if the undertaking of the transferor bank had not been transferred to and vested in the transferee bank". 31. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent that since the Respondent has not exercised his option for his retention in the job, and that the Chairman of Bharat Overseas Bank has not chosen to pass orders on his resignation, he deemed to have resigned from the job. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the charge memos were by the incompetent authority and on that ground also, the Respondent is entitled to succeed. 32. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (1) LLN page 372-K.S.P.Dora vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited. In the said case, the petitioner therein while on leave, submitted his resignation with immediate effect and also enclosed a Demand Draft representing three months salary. 32. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (1) LLN page 372-K.S.P.Dora vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited. In the said case, the petitioner therein while on leave, submitted his resignation with immediate effect and also enclosed a Demand Draft representing three months salary. However, the management of Bharat Overseas Bank has rejected the said request and also returned the Demand Draft stating that the Rules do not provide resignation with immediate effect. On 25. 1996, a letter was received from the management wherein it was indicated that the resignation was not accepted as it was not consistent with Rules. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued in respect of his unauthorised absence and subsequently a second charge memo was also issued to him. The petitioner therein filed two writ petitions for the quashment of the charge memo and the letter of the management rejecting his request for resignation. 33. The learned Judge in the said decision after taking into consideration the Regulations of Bharat Overseas Bank Officers Service Regulations, has held that at the stage when the resignation letter was given by the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings was pending or even contemplated and it came to be initiated subsequently. The learned Judge further held that even though the offer to refund three months salary was not contemplated in the Service Regulations, nothing prevented the Chairman from considering the question as to whether resignation to be accepted with immediate effect or not. 34. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed and nothing is forthcoming as to why his resignation was not accepted. The learned Judge after taking note of the above said aspects, held that it must be taken that if the petitioner had resigned and his service had come to an end with immediate effect viz., 30.4.2006, the relationship of employer and employee would be deemed to have been severed from 5. 2006 and subsequential initiation of departmental proceedings must be taken to be as illegal. The learned Judge has also gone into the nature of charges and held that the charges appear to be very trivial in nature and apparently churlish reaction to the letter of resignation and the subsequent refusal to rejoin duty. 2006 and subsequential initiation of departmental proceedings must be taken to be as illegal. The learned Judge has also gone into the nature of charges and held that the charges appear to be very trivial in nature and apparently churlish reaction to the letter of resignation and the subsequent refusal to rejoin duty. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed directing the management to settle the terminal benefits. 35. This Court is of the considered opinion, the above cited decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand, the petitioner was conscious of the fact that unless his resignation is accepted, he cannot get a relieving order and that is why even in the letter of resignation dated 4. 2006 he prayed for the relieving order with immediate effect which was followed by the reminder dated 14. 2006. The management vide its telegram dated 14. 2006, called upon the Respondent to join the duty immediately as the act of deserting the branch is unauthorised and not in order. The Respondent in response to the telegram, sent a reply dated 24. 2006, justifying his action and once again requested for the relieving order. 136. Since the Respondent in spite of telegram dated 14. 2006 failed to join duty, then the management issued a charge memo for his unauthorised absence. Thereafter, two show cause notices dated 7. 2006 were issued to the Respondent alleging laxity in monitoring the account and irregularity in conducting the account and the said memos were followed by a charge memo dated 112. 2006. Regulation 13 makes it very clear that the Chairman may at his discretion permit an officer to resign without such notice or reduce the period of such notice and in respect of the case on hand, the same has not been done. The Regulation further provides that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, any notice of resignation shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Chairman and disciplinary proceedings shall be treated as pending against the officer, until the final orders are passed on them. Explanation to Regulation 13 provides that a show cause notice or order of suspension or charge sheet signed by the Chairman and put on a course of transmission prior to or during the period of notice will be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Clause (iii). 137. Explanation to Regulation 13 provides that a show cause notice or order of suspension or charge sheet signed by the Chairman and put on a course of transmission prior to or during the period of notice will be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Clause (iii). 137. Clause 14 of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (Transfer of Undertaking to Indian Overseas Bank) Scheme 2007 provides as follows:- "On and from the Effective Date, all suits, actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the Transferor Banking Company pending and/or arising on or before the Effective Date shall be continued and be enforced by or against the Transferee Bank as effectively as if the same had been filed by, pending and/or arising against the Transferee Bank". The only interpretation that can be given to the said Regulation is that actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the Transferor Banking Company pending and / or arising on or before the Effective Date shall be continued and be enforced............... 38. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, when in terms of the above said Regulation, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent are pending and simply because he has not exercised his option for any terms of Regulation (3) of Chapter IV, it cannot be said that he was ceased to be in service and there is no Master and Servant relationship. 39. The attention of the Court was not drawn to any other Regulation to the effect that in the absence of passing of orders on the resignation letter, the resignation deemed to have been accepted. On the other hand, Regulation 13 provides unless and until it is accepted and specific orders are passed, the resignation shall not come into effect. 40. In view of the above said findings that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the Respondent, the amendment dated November 2000 made to the Service Rules would come into operation whereby the General Manager became disciplinary authority and the Chairman became the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it is not necessary that the Chairman shall issue the charge memo. Even otherwise the General Manager is higher in rank than the Respondent and therefore, he is competent to initiate disciplinary action. 41. Therefore, it is not necessary that the Chairman shall issue the charge memo. Even otherwise the General Manager is higher in rank than the Respondent and therefore, he is competent to initiate disciplinary action. 41. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent reported in 2003 (1) LLN page 372-K.S.P.Dora vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (Single Bench) (cited supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as discussed above. Even otherwise, subsequent to the said judgment, notification was issued by the Government of India on 13. 2007 to the effect that the Bharat Overseas Bank get merged with Indian Overseas Bank and as per Clause No.14, on and from the Effective Date, all suits, actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the Transferor Banking Company pending and/or arising on or before the Effective Date shall be continued and be enforced by or against the Transferee Bank as effectively as if the same had been filed by, pending and/or arising against the Transferee Bank. Chapter IV of the Scheme speaks about the rights and obligations of the employees of the Transferee Bank. Therefore, in the light of the subsequent development, the appellant herein is competent and entitled to continue disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent. 42. Since no specific written order accepting the resignation has been passed, it cannot be said that the Respondents resignation is deemed to have came into effect and thereby, there is cessation of Master and Servant relationship. In the absence of any specific order accepting the resignation, the Respondent is deemed to be in service. Once the Respondent is deemed to be in service, the settlement of terminal benefits cannot arise. 43. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 13. 2008 made in W.P.No.1490 of 2006 is set aside and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. 44. It is open to the appellant/management to take into consideration, the age of the Respondent the fact that there has been a settlement of sun Animation account where there is alleged laxity and other factors and decide whether it should continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 45. Consequently, W.A.M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. 44. It is open to the appellant/management to take into consideration, the age of the Respondent the fact that there has been a settlement of sun Animation account where there is alleged laxity and other factors and decide whether it should continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 45. The findings given/observations made in this writ appeal are only for the purpose of its disposal and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the charge memos issued by the appellants against the Respondent.