JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "To issue an order/ direction or any appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter Rc.No.3643/GGH/N1r/19, dated 19.08.2019 of Dr.Y.Nirmala Devi, M.D, Superintendent (FAC), Government General Hospital, Nellore to the Director of Health and Family Welfare, A.P.Vijayawada as impugned, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and colorable exercise and misuse of official powers." 2. This Court has heard Sri N.H.Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Sri D.Krishna Murthy for the respondents. 3. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was surrendered to his parent organization by the orders of the Superintendent, Government General Hospital. The petitioner claims to be the Lay Secretary, Grade-II in the Office of the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The Lay Secretary is given administrative duties in a hospital. The rules are reproduced in the affidavit and there is no serious dispute about the same. The essential allegations are made against the 5th respondent on ground that she bore ill-will towards the petitioner and that for extraneous reasons and on mala fide grounds, she surrendered the petitioner to the parent department. Allegations are made by the petitioner against the 5th respondent. Learned counsel submits that she has misused her capacity and she had surrendered the petitioner only to accommodate a near and dear one in the said position. 4. The Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 argues that due to the petitioner's attitude and behaviour the entire administration of the hospital was paralyzed and that disciplinary action was also being taken against the petitioner; that a charge memo was also been issued; that due process of law would follow and the enquiry would be conducted. The Government Pleader, therefore, justified the surrender on the ground that there are only controversies surrounding the petitioner which would warrant the surrender of the petitioner to the parent department. He relies upon paras 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit to point out that there are justifiable reasons for surrendering the petitioner. He submits that surrender is not a punishment per se and that therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent argues both on law and on fact. He submits that surrender is not a punishment per se and that therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent argues both on law and on fact. Legally, he submits that the 5th respondent is added as a party to the writ petition in her individual capacity, while she has passed an order in her official capacity. It is his contention that the 5th respondent cannot be added as a respondent in her individual capacity. He also points out that the Superintendent Government General Hospital, Nellore is not added as a party. He also submits that the order of surrender was passed in August, 2019 and another person called Smt. P.Anuradha was already been appointed in the place of the petitioner and that she has taken charge. Learned counsel also relies upon paras 6 and 11 of his affidavit to show that there are strong and justifiable reasons for surrendering the petitioner. The respondents also cited Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, 2000 5 SCC 362 to argue that a person who has been deputed cannot claim a right to be retained at that place only. They argue that deputationist can be repatriated to his parent department. 6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that in this case what has been done is that on the basis of certain allegations which are made against the petitioner, his services were surrendered to the Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh on administrative grounds. This order was passed in August, 2019 itself. The petitioner's counsel contended that this is a mala fide action and that the charges against him are not correct. However, as can be seen from the counter affidavit filed, more particularly by the State, a charge memo is already issued on 10.10.2019 to the petitioner for the proposed enquiry. Therefore, whether the imputations of misconduct which are made against the petitioner are correct or not should not be decided by this Court while deciding the writ petition. The documents filed by the petitioner himself show that he is aware of the reasons leading to the surrender. Apart from this, both the counsels for the respondents have stated and argued that the entire atmosphere in the hospital was vitiated because of the conduct of the petitioner. The documents filed by the petitioner himself show that he is aware of the reasons leading to the surrender. Apart from this, both the counsels for the respondents have stated and argued that the entire atmosphere in the hospital was vitiated because of the conduct of the petitioner. It is submitted that in order to improve the working atmosphere, the services of the petitioner are surrendered. This Court is of the opinion that there is some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. As far as the allegations against the 5th respondent is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the 5th respondent can only be added as a party if a clear case of bias and malice in law is made out and the Superintendent is added as a party to the writ. As per the settled law on the subject, when fraud/malice etc., is urged the pleading and the documentary evidence should be of a high standard. Merely making allegations of bias and malice is not enough. These are matters which must be pleaded with adequate clarity. The case on hand does not meet the standards that are required. Apart from that, this Court also notices that the Superintendent of the Government Hospital has not been added as a party. In the absence of clear and categorical details of the alleged bias or malice, this Court is of the opinion that the 5th respondent cannot be added as a party in her individual capacity. It is also held that the non-joining of the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital in the official capacity is also fatal to the case of the petitioner. The order of surrender is passed by the Superintendent. Therefore, there is a need to add the Superintendent in her official capacity as a party to the proceedings. No order can be passed against the present respondent No.5. 8. Therefore, for both these reasons that (1) the 5th respondent cannot be added in his individual capacity and (2) non-joinder of the Superintendent, the case against respondent No.5 must failed. 9. Last, but not the least, this Court is also of the opinion that a person, who is on deputation cannot claim a vested right to remain in that post only. 9. Last, but not the least, this Court is also of the opinion that a person, who is on deputation cannot claim a vested right to remain in that post only. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the respondents squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court also finds that disciplinary proceedings have also been commenced. 10. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court holds that there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.