Order 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the charge memo dated 20.10.2009 issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Discipline and Appeal) Rules and to direct the respondents to disburse all the pensionary and retirement benefits and arrears thereof to the petitioner within a time frame with interest at 18% per annum for delayed payment. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.15101 of 2010 seeking for finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge memo dated 20.10.2009 within a time frame. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.07.2010, directing the first respondent to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the charge memo dated 20.10.2009 and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. According to the petitioner, since the order dated 14.07.2010 made in W.P.No.15101 of 2010 was not complied by the respondents, the charge memo itself is liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents neither filed an application seeking extension of time to comply with the order passed by this Court nor passed final order. Hence, this Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai -5 on 05.08.2013 and directed the matter to be listed today. 5. Pursuant to the contempt proceedings, the contemnor is present before the Court. It is submitted that final order dated 27.08.2013 was passed on the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1954 of 2013 is closed. 6. As far as the writ petition is concerned, I am not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge memo is liable to be quashed as no final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings as directed by this Court on 14.07.2010 in W.P.No.15101 of 2010. If the respondents failed to comply with the order passed by this Court, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file a contempt petition. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and seek to quash the charge memo itself. Further, now final order dated 27.08.2013 is passed on the disciplinary proceedings to deduct a sum of Rs.200/-from the pension of the petitioner for a period of one year. The said punishment was not objected by the petitioner. Hence, no concurrence from TNPSC is necessary. Further, now final order dated 27.08.2013 is passed on the disciplinary proceedings to deduct a sum of Rs.200/-from the pension of the petitioner for a period of one year. The said punishment was not objected by the petitioner. Hence, no concurrence from TNPSC is necessary. 7. In these circumstances, nothing survives in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner at the earliest and in any event within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.