Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18179 of 2013 ====================================================== Niranjan Kumar Son Of Late Baleshwar Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- East Lohanipur, P.O.Andp.S.- Kadamkuan, Town And District- Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt Of Bihar, Patna 2. Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna 4. Deputy Superintendent, Rajendra Nagar Hospital Patna 5. Manoj Kumar Son Of Not Known To The Petitioner At Present Posted And Working As Clerk, Rajendra Nagar Hospital, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajiv Roy, GP5 For respondent no.5 : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 19-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the order of his transfer dated 19.8.2013 and to that extent it would be relevant to quote the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application: “That the present application is for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter issued vide memo no. 632 dated 19.8.2013 under the signature of the Deputy Superintendent, Rajendra Nagar Hospital, Patna as contained in Annexure 5, by which the petitioner has been unilaterally relieved to join in the Civil Surgeon Office, Patna. And further also for quashing the order issued vide memo no. 5801 dated 26.8.2013 under the signature of the Civil Surgeon cum Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 2 Chief Medical Officer, Patna as contained in Annexure 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been posted in the Primary Health Centre, Punpun. And further a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the Rajendra Nagar Hospital, Patna where he was earlier transferred and posted by order issued vide memo no. 4181 dated 28.6.2013 under the signature of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper.” 3. When the writ application was heard on 9.10.2013 this Court had passed the following order:- "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Assailing the impugned order of transfer of the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner had already been transferred on 28.6.2013 to Rajendra Nagar Hospital and he had also joined on his transferred post of on 16.7.2013 he could not have been again transferred to Punpun only to accommodate Respondents no. 5 at Rajendra Nagar Hospital who is posted over there for more than five years. 3. Mr. Rajiv Roy, learned G.P.-3 prays for an is allowed three weeks time to take instructions and file his counter affidavit. 4. Issue also notice to the respondent no.5 both under ordinary process and registered cover, requisites etc. for which must be filed within one week from today, Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 3 failing which this application, as against the respondent concerned, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. 5. Additionally, this Court would also give liberty to the petitioner to serve one more extra copy of the writ application on the learned Government Pleader No.5 who will then get it served through the Civil Surgeon Patna on the respondent no.5 within a period of four weeks whereafter an affidavit of service will be sworn and filed by the Civil Surgeon, Patna.. 6. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State will also obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. 7. Put up this case for admission under the heading for Admission-I at the top immediately after service of notice on the respondent no.5 under any of the three modes. 8. Pending final disposal of this writ application, the operation of the impugned orders dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure-5) and 26.8.2013 (Annexure-6) shall remain stayed and if any work is taken from the respondent no.5 at Rajendra Nagar Hospital either by Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital and/or the Civil Surgeon, Patna both of them shall be individualy or collectively liable to pay such salary to the respondent no.5 from their own pocket." 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, counter affidavit have been filed by the Respondents. the case was heard yeasterday and in view of conflicting stand of the Civil Surgeon, Patna and Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital were directed Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 4 to appear in person and both of them have also appeared today. 5. Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner dated 19.8.2013 passed within 45 days of the earlier transfer order of the petitioner dated 28.6.2013 is bad both on fact and in law and in this regard he has submitted that when the petitioner was earlier transferred on 28.6.2013 and such transfer order was given effect to by his being not only relieved from the earlier place but also submitting his joining at the transferred place, the Civil Surgeon has no jurisdiction to cancel such transfer order of the petitioner which has been done by the impugned order. He has further submitted that this has been done only to accommodate respondent no.5 who was earlier working in Rajendra Nagar Hospital for more than four years. 6. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed by the Civil Surgeon wherein it has been stated that as per guidelines issued by the Director-in-Chief of the Health Services laying down norms of transfer no employee having a tenure of three years or more was to be posted in the same Sub-division if there be more than one Sub-division in a district. It has been explained that after discovery of the fact that the petitioner’s transfer was made in the Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 5 same Sub-division where he was earlier posted as also that the Patna Sub-division is his home Sub-division, the Civil Surgeon had passed the impugned order by transferring the petitioner from Rajendra Nagar dispensary to Punpun which are in two separate Sub-divisions. As with regard to respondent no.5 it has been stated that though respondent no.5 was posted initially to Bakhtiyarpur but then such order was corrected and his place of posting was changed from Bakhtiyarpur to Primary Health Center, Dhanarua but then when respondent no.5 had taken a plea of his being an office bearer of the Union, his order of transfer was stayed and as such, removal of the petitioner became a necessity because two persons could not have been allowed to continue on the same post. 7. Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, while supporting the stand taken by the Civil Surgeon in his counter affidavit has further expanded his submissions that if the transfer of the petitioner was itself in violation of the guideline issued by the Director-in-Chief, no right can be said to have been vested in him to continue at his transferred place in Rajendra Nagar Hospital, especially when it is in the home Sub-division of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner’s transfer to Punpun is a logical fall out of stay of the transfer of respondent no.5 and since respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 6 no.5 was an office bearer of the Union who had a right to exercise an option once in service career for being retained in a particular place in terms of the Government circular dated 17.5.2006 (Annexure R5/A), no error was committed in shifting the petitioner to Punpun. He has also submitted that the very transfer of the petitioner to Rajendra Nagar Hospital and removal of respondent no.5 from Rajendra Nagar Hospital by the Civil Surgeon was without jurisdiction and in this regard he has placed reliance on the Government letter dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure R5/C) to contend that since the controlling authority is the Director-in-Chief of the Health Services, the Civil Surgeon after 15.11.2011 could not have passed any order of transfer either of the petitioner to Rajendra Nagar dispensary or of respondent no.5 removing from Rajendra Nagar Dispensary, inasmuch as Rajendra Nagar Dispensary became a specialized centre of treatment which went beyond the control of the Civil Surgeon, Patna. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court this writ application must succeed on a very simple ground that once a transfer order was given effect to as was in the case of the petitioner when his transfer order dated 28.6.2013 was acted upon by way of his being relieved on 12.7.2013 by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna whereafter the petitioner had Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 7 submitted his joining on 16.7.2013 to Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital, the subsequent cancellation of the earlier transfer order and his posting on 19.8.2013 from Rajendra Nagar Hospital to Punpun was itself bad. This issue in fact has been settled in a number of decisions of this Court that once a transfer order has been given effect to, the same cannot be rescinded, cancelled or taken back. 9. Having held so this Court will not leave the matter there, inasmuch as it would be found that on 16.7.2013 the Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital had no jurisdiction to either question the order of the Civil Surgeon and he was under obligation to accept the joining of the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent, who has created this mess, is fit to be subjected to a disciplinary proceeding for flouting the order of the Civil Surgeon, inasmuch as on 16.7.2013 there was no order of stay in favour of respondent no.5 or cancelling the order of transfer of the petitioner. A sub-ordinate employee cannot be allowed to question the decision of the superior authority and irrespective of the control of the Director-in-Chief as the controlling authority on account of Rajendra Nagar Hospital as a super specialty hospital the action of civil surgeon Patna of transferring the petitioner to Rajendra Nagar Hospital and for that purpose removing Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 8 respondent no.5 cannot be questioned by Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital. 10. In coming to this conclusion this Court has found two unimpeachable documents. Firstly, the Government policy itself which takes care of power transfer of even an employee working in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Health vested in Civil Surgeon, Patna and the Government while laying down its policy of transfer has clearly laid down that even for the clerical posts of the office of the Regional Deputy Director, a transfer order can be issued by the Civil Surgeon. Once this aspect, therefore, becomes clear that there is a Government hospital under the administrative control of a district or an office of the Health Department which is under the control of the Civil Surgeon the transfer order can definitely be issued by the Civil Surgeon especially when no separate cadre has been created for Class III and Class IV employees after declaration of Rajendra Nagar hospital as a super specialty hospital. Reference in this connection may be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Kalimullah v. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1994(1) PLJR 757, wherein the issue relating to Class III and Class IV employees of the Health Department was directly gone into and it was held that the cadre being confined to a district Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 9 transfer can only be made by the Civil Surgeon and/or the Director-in-Chief. 11. Apparently the transfer of the petitioner, therefore, made on 28.6.2013 and that of respondent no.5 on the same day by removing him from Rajendra Nagar hospital to Bakhtiyarpur and then to Dhanarua under the order of Civil Surgeon cannot be held to be bad. 12. This Court, however, would fail in its duty if it does not consider that part of the submission of Mr. Mukherjee where reliance has been heavily placed on a Government letter dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure 9 or Annexure R5/C). From the said letter it cannot be inferred that the existing posts were available in Rajendra Nagar hospital as on the date of 15.11.2011 had gone out of administrative control of the Civil Surgeon. On the other hand, the said order only envisages creation of 60 posts of doctors or technical employees required for functioning of super specialty hospital. In fact the said letter very clearly says that the doctors shall be employed on contract and the post of Class IV employees shall be filled up by way of outsources. The over emphasized reliance on paragraph 4 of the said letter which reads as follows: ^^jkf’k dh fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh mik/kh{kd] jktsUnzuxj vLirky] iVuk ,oa lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fpfdRldksa rFkk vkmVlkslZ ij fy, x;s gkmlC;k; ,oa vkns’kiky ds osru ds Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 10 fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh] flfoy ltZu] iVuk gksaxs rFkk fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh funs’kd izeq[k] LokLF; lsok,a fcgkj iVuk gksaxsA** by itself would go to show that it was meant only for the financial arrangement of making payment and under that while the Director-in-Chief was made the controlling officer, the Civil Surgeon was made the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The very fact that the Civil Surgeon was not denude of his power will go a long way to show that even when the Government had taken a decision to create a super specialty in Rejendra Nagar hospital it had never envisaged to take away the power of the Civil Surgeon as with regard to making transfer and posting of the post of which he was a cadre controlling authority. 13. Admittedly both the petitioner and respondent no.5 belong to a cadre whose cadre controlling authority till date is the Civil Surgeon. In fact no separate cadre for non-teaching employee of Rajendra Nagar super specialty hospital has been created so as to give the separate status to respondent no.5 of being an employee incapable of being touched by the Civil Surgeon. 14. The matter can be viewed from another angle, inasmuch as respondent no.5 was transferred on 28.6.2013 after completion of his tenure of a period of more than three years at Rajendra Nagar hospital. If for any reason the transfer order of Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 11 respondent no.5 was sought to be modified on 2.7.2013 by posting him from Bakhtiyarpur to Dhanarua, he had to get the order of stay before acceptance of joining of the petitioner. There is however nothing on record and in fact respondent no.5 has purposely suppressed the order by which the transfer order was stayed. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to Annexure 6 to contend that from the same it would appear that the transfer order of respondent no.5 was stayed on the ground that he was a member of Union. Unfortunately Annexure 6 is an order dated 26.8.2013 which only in the operative portion talks about the petitioner’s services being returned on 19.8.2013 by the Deputy Superintendent on the ground that he became an additional surplus hand at Rajendra Nagar hospital and as such, he is to be transferred to Punpun. This order dated 26.8.2013 in fact is the impugned order challenged by the petitioner. 15. A question would arise that even if this Court accepts the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that there was an order dated 14.8.2013, as contained in the Civil Surgeon’s letter dated 26.8.2013 by which the transfer of respondent no.5 from Dhanarua was stayed, what logic can be inferred from this action of the Deputy Superintendent who having been given joining of the petitioner on 16.7.2013 kept the petitioner waiting till 19.8.2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 12 only to return the services of the petitioner to Civil Surgeon on the ground that on account of an order passed on 14.8.2013 staying of the transfer of respondent no.5, the petitioner had become a surplus hand. There cannot be infact a better example of highhandedness of the Deputy Superintendent who has created all the problems, inasmuch as if the transfer order dated 28.6.2013 has already been complied by the petitioner and if there was an application by respondent no.5 for stay of his transfer order which was to be acted upon by the Civil Surgeon, the petitioner could not have been removed, rather it was respondent no.5 who had to accommodated at some other place in Patna Sub-division not necessarily in Rajendra Nagar hospital. 16. Be that as it may, this Court having gone into the Government circular on the basis of which the transfer of respondent no.5 was stayed must hold that the order dated 14.8.2013, as referred in Annexure 6, was itself in teeth of the Government circular. The Government circular does not say about any and every Union and its Member to be facilitated with an order of stay. That becomes clear from the wordings of the circular dated 17.5.2006 (Annexure R5/A), wherein such agreement between the Government was made only with Bihar Rajya Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh/ Mahasangh and its office Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 13 bearers. This Bihar Rajya Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh/ Mahasangh is definitely a recognized trade Union of the Government and there is an agreement with regard to certain facilities to its Members in the matter of transfer as would be evidenced from the text of the order which is quoted hereinbelow: ^^funs’kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k;d foHkkxh; i=kad 838 fnukad 08-10-2005 ds dze esa lwfpr djuk gS fd fcgkj jkT; vjktif=r deZpkjh la?k@egkla?k dk dk;Zdkfj.kh ds in/kkjdksa@inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds LFkkukUrj.k ds laca/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkar jkT; ljdkj }kjk fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gSa& 1- iwjs lsokdky esa ,d ckj nks o"kksZa ds fy, LFkkukUrj.k ij jksd dk ykHk flQZ ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?kksa ds in/kkjdksa dks vuqekU; gksxkA 2- ;g ykHk ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds jkT; bdkbZ] izeaMyh; bdkbZ ,oa ftyk bdkbZ rd gh vuqekU; gksxkA 3- jkT; Lrj ij ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds v/;{k ,oa vU; ikap in/kkjdksa dks LFkkukUrj.k ds jksd dk ykHk vuqekU; gksxkA bu ikap lnL;ksa dk uke lacaf/kr ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds v/;{k fyf[kr :i ls nsaxsA 4- izeaMy Lrj ij ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds izeaMyh; v/;{k ds vfrfjDr rhu in/kkjdksa dks ;g ykHk ns; gksxkA bu rhu in/kkjdksa dh lwph la?k@egkla?k ds izeaMyh; v/;{k izeaMyh; Lrj ds inkf/kdkjh dks lefiZr djsaxsA 5- ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds ftyk Lrjh; bdkbZ ds v/;{k ,oa vU; nks in/kkjdksa dks ;g ykHk vuqekU; gksxkA ftyk bdkbZ ds v/;{k vU; nks in/kkjdksa dk uke lacaf/kr ftyk inkf/kdkjh@ftyk Lrjh; inkf/kdjh dks nsaxsA 6- vu’kklughurk@dRrZO;ghurk@ljdkjh lsod ds fy, fu/kkZfjr eki naM ds izfrdwy vfHk;qfDr okys in/kkjdksa dks ;g ykHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 14 7- nks o"kZ dh vof/k iw.kZ gksus ds nwljs fnu ls in/kkjd mDr ykHk ls oafpr Lor% gks tk;saxsA pkgs mDr ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?k ds ubZ dk;Zdkfj.kh dk xBu gks vFkok ugha gksA 8- tks vjktif=r deZpkjh Ain/kkjdA bldk ykHk ysaxs] mudh lsokiqfLr esa lacaf/kr inkf/kdkjh bl vk’k; dk izfo"Vh dj nsaxs rkfd nqckjk ykHk Hkwyo’k ;k vU; dkj.kksa ls u ys ldsA 9- dkSu&dkSu la?k ekU;rk izkIr gS] bl laca/k esa ykHk nsus okys dk;kZy;@foHkkx lacaf/kr la?k@egkla?k ls ekU;rk ds lanHkZ es a lwpuk AekU;rk dk vk/kkjA izkIr dj ysaxs rFkk larq"V gks ysaxs fd okLro esa mUgsa ekU;rk izkIr gS vFkok ughaA 10- ekU;rk izkIr la?k@egkla?kksa ds dk;Zdkfj.kh dk pquko tYn ls tYn fu;ekuqlkj djk;k tk;A** 17. Nothing however has been brought on record to show that respondent no.5 is an office bearer of Bihar Rajya Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh/ Mahasangh. On the other hand, whatever documents have been brought on record will go to show that respondent no.5 claims to be an office bearer of Bihar Chikitsa Ewam Jan Swashthya Karamchari Sangh, Rajendra Nagar Hospital, Patna. This Court therefore fails to understand as to how the Government circular dated 17.5.2006 could have been made applicable in relation to an office bearer of Bihar Chikitsa Ewam Jan Swashthya Karamchari Sangh, inasmuch as that Circular only gives certain facilities in the matter of stay of transfer to the office bearers of Bihar Rajya Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh/ Mahasangh. The Trade Union Act very clearly defines the Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 15 registration of each of the Union by its own name and to that extent it would be necessary to refer to Section 8 which talks of registration of the Union in a particular name as also section 23 with regard to change of name of such Union. 18. Therefore, there is no difficulty on the basis of materials on record to hold that Bihar Rajya Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh/ Mahasangh cannot be read to be also mean Bihar Chikitsa Awam Jan Swashthya Karamchari Sangh, Rajendra Nagar Hospital, Patna which according to Mr. Mukherjee is separately registered in its own name as a Union and has been recognized by the Government. The moment there is a separate name and recognition of the Union of respondent no.5 and the same does not find place in the agreement, as contained in Annexure R5/A, there can be no question of forcibility of such agreement, inasmuch as this also is completely covered by Section 19 of the Trade Union Act which says about enforceability of an agreement between a recognized Union and the Management. 19. Considering all these aspects this Court must hold that the stay of transfer of respondent no.5 on the ground of recognized trade Union was totally impermissible, being not only against the spirit of the order dated 17.5.2006 but also the Government decision laying down the norms of transfer, as Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 16 contained in Annexure C/3 dated 31.5.2013, which in no way refers to any privilege to be given to the Members of the Union. Therefore, if the order of transfer of the petitioner was sought to be assailed by respondent no.5 on the ground of his being physically unwell as clearly mentioned in the order of transfer dated 28.6.2013, the same would also apply with full force even in the case of respondent no.5 because this transfer policy does not say so to give certain facilities on the ground of stay of transfer of its office bearers. 20. In any event this Court would find that the transfer order of the petitioner was already acted upon and the plea that there was no mention of someone physically unwell by way of carving out an exception of transfer of the petitioner in the same manner necessitating removal of the petitioner from Rajendra Nagar to Punpun is itself contradicted by the impugned order, contained in Annexure 6, which does not say that the petitioner’s transfer was being recalled or cancelled because it was in violation of the Government policy. On the other hand, the letter clearly says that on account of stay of transfer of respondent no.5 on 14.8.2013 since the Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar Hospital had reported that the petitioner who had already joined on 16.7.2013 by complying his transfer order dated 28.6.2013 has Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 17 become a surplus employee and therefore, he was sought to be now adjusted by being posted at Punpun. 21. There can be thus no better proof of giving patronage or bestowing a favour which respondent no.5 had been given only on account of an illegal action of Deputy Superintendent of the hospital. 22. This Court, therefore, has also no difficulty in holding that the stay of transfer order of the petitioner was actuated by malice which was writ large on the face of record. Normally in matter relating to transfer, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well circumscribed by self imposed limit and in fact such transfer order can be interfered on a very limited ground, namely, jurisdiction or malafide. In the present case the issue of jurisdiction becomes one of the significance in the sense that the Civil Surgeon could not have transferred the petitioner again by the impugned order once the petitioner’s earlier transfer order had already been given effect to by way of his being relieved and submission of joining at Rajendra Nagar on 16.7.2013, Thus the Civil Surgeon had no jurisdiction to again recall that transfer order. 23. Here malice of the Deputy Superintendent for the reasons indicated above becomes clear and therefore, this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 18 will have no difficulty in quashing both the orders dated 19.8.2013 by which the Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar hospital had unilaterally relieved the petitioner for reporting to the office of the Civil Surgeon and the consequential order passed by the Civil Surgeon on 26.8.2013 transferring the petitioner from Rajendra Nagar hospital to Punpun. 24. As a result of quashing of both these orders, this Court would definitely expect now anyone and everyone who so ever is Incharge of Rajendra Nagar Hospital including the Director, newly posted over there, to allow the petitioner to work, inasmuch as the Civil Surgeon of Patna district in compliance of the interim order of stay passed by this Court has already passed his order on 9.10.2013 for acceptance of joining of the petitioner at Rajendra Nagar Hospital. It is infact unfortunate to note here that despite an order of stay by this Court impediments were sought to be created either by the Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar hospital of his own or under disguised instruction of the Director of Rajendra Nagar hospital on the ground of his seeking certain instruction from the Director-in-Chief. This Court must clarify that in view of order of stay passed on 9.10.2013 there was no question of seeking clarification from anyone. Learned counsel for the State in fact has submitted that the steps Patna High Court CWJC No.18179 of 2013 (4) dt.19-11-2013 19 were taken for giving effect to the interim order passed by this Court and if anyone is or would be found to be flouting the order of this Court, appropriate action will be taken against such officer. 25. In view of above, this application must succeed and is accordingly allowed. 26. When the entire order has been dictated Dr. Naresh Kumar Bhimsariya, the Deputy Superintendent of Rajendra Nagar hospital submits that he was a new comer and in fact holding the post of Deputy Superintendent on In-charge basis and he had no intention to either flout the interim order of this Court or help respondent no.5 in any manner. He has also tendered unqualified apology for all his actions. 27. In view of above, this Court for the time being, while giving warning to him to remain careful in future while complying the order of his superior, would drop the matter without subjecting him to any disciplinary proceedings. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-