JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 12th December, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent No. 1 herein had challenged his suspension order before the learned Single Judge by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4144/01 and the suspension order was stayed by the learned Single Judge, and in compliance of the stay order granted by the learned Single Judge the Government reinstated the respondent No. 1, but he was kept awaiting posting orders. Thereafter, he was transferred out of Jaipur. When this matter was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the record was summoned by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 12th December, 2001 had been passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. This order shows that the learned Single Judge noticed that there was no para 4; Para 5 & 6 had been deleted; Page 4 had been typed with para 7 and also para 7 as also para 3 dated 31st August, 2001 wherein the opinion of the Additional Advocate General had been given. He noted certain discrepancies in the record as enumerated in the order. The learned Single Judge formed the opinion that Para 9 creates suspicion that because of non-implementation of the order of this Court, certain paras had been incorporated and the learned Single Judge found it to be fit to direct the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to take action by filing complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City against the present appellant namely Mr. G.L. Verma, who was concerned Deputy Secretary, Medical Department at that time. 2. It is not in dispute that the main petition which had been filed by the respondent No. 1 has already been dismissed on merits and that order has already become final. The controversy was only that there was non- implementation of the stay of suspension in the sense that although he had been reinstated after suspension, why he had been transferred out of Jaipur. 3. The controversy was only that there was non- implementation of the stay of suspension in the sense that although he had been reinstated after suspension, why he had been transferred out of Jaipur. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the main petition (in which the order dated 12th December, 2001 had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition) has itself been dismissed on merits it is not necessary for this Court to go into the trifles of no consequence, and in our opinion it is not necessary for this Court to take the task of adjudication of the trivial controversy. We, therefore, find it to be a fit case for disposing of both these appeals with the observations that the order dated 12th December, 2001, which had been passed in the petition will have no consequence and if any complaint has been filed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and the matter has been registered or entertained before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the present appellant, such proceedings therein shall terminate so as to come to an end and the pendency of such criminal proceedings shall cease forthwith. 4. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.Both Appeals Disposed of as Above. *******