Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. There are two petitioners in this writ application. Their prayer is that the office order dated 31/1/1992 and 1/2/1992 issued by the respondent Joint State Transport Commissioner, Patna (Annexures 4 series) by which their services have been reverted to their parent department be quashed since the same has not been passed on compliance of the principles of Natural Justice. 2. The petitioners are constables employed in Bihar Police Service. It appears that pursuant to the statutory requirements under the Motor vehicles Act, the Transport Department had, pursuant to a policy decision of the Government requisitioned the services of different personnels from the Police Department to act as the Enforcement Officers. The said policy decision has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ application which, inter alia, shows that ordinarily the deputation of police personnel in the transport Department will be for a period of three years. Keeping in view the said policy decision the services of the petitioners were placed with the Transport Department vide order dated 23/1/1991 and they joined at their places of posting in the Transport District Office, Ranchi on on 9/2/1991 and 3/3/1991. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 31/1/1992 and 1/2/1992 the respondent Joint State Transport Commissioner has returned their services to the parent department. 3. Shri Basudeo Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that their deputation being for three years pursuant to the policy decision of the Government contained in Annexure 1, the petitioners could not have been reverted to their parent department before the expiry of the said period. He has further submitted that the impugned orders of reversion are also bad because the same could not have been passed unless their services had been recalled by the parent department or in any event without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in the matter, which was admitted not granted in the present case. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of K. H. Phadnis V/s. State of Maharastra, reported in 1971 (2) SLR 345 (SC) and also on the case of Dr. Bhagat singh V/s. the Vice-chancellor, Punjab University, reported in 1981 (2) SLR 329 (P. and H. ). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhagat singh V/s. the Vice-chancellor, Punjab University, reported in 1981 (2) SLR 329 (P. and H. ). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, S. C. I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infermity and since the petitioners were sent on deputation, they have not acquired any right to remain in the Transport Department. To substantiate his submission, he had placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal B. Soni and others V/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1132 . 5. In K. H. Phadnis (Supra) it was found as a matter of fact by the supreme Court that the appellant was reverted to his parent department on levelling certain allegations against him which were also the subject matter of police enquiry. According to the Supreme Court their reversion was in the nature of a punishment and therefore compliance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution was necessary bnt at the same time in paragraph 17 of the Judgment while dealing with the law relating to the subject it has been held that : "the order of reversion simplicitor will not amount to reduction in rank or a punishment A Government servant holding a temporary post and having lien on his substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service. A person holding a temporary post may draw the salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss or salary cannot be said to have any penal consequence. " 6. In the case of Ratilal B. Son! (Supra) it has been held by the Supreme court that : "the appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. " 7. The Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dr. Bhagat Singh (Supra) has no bearing on the facts of the present case. That case devolved on interpretation of Sec.9-A of punjabi University Act, 1961. " 7. The Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dr. Bhagat Singh (Supra) has no bearing on the facts of the present case. That case devolved on interpretation of Sec.9-A of punjabi University Act, 1961. According to the Court, Sec.9 A of that act did not authorise the Chancellor to cut short the tenure of three years statutorily fixed, therefore, the order cutting short the term to less than three years was bad. There is no such situaton in the present case. 8. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the apex court, we are clearly of the view that in the present case the order of reversion of the petitioners to their aparent department is an order of reversion simplicitor without involving any punishment and is based on administrative exigencies. Therefore, it was quite competent en the part of the respondent Transport Commissioner to pass the impugned order even if the services of the petitioners were not requested to be returned by the parent department. There was no necessity of granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order. It is also fallacious to say that the petitioners were deputed for any fixed period which in law was not permissible to be shortened. 9. Accordingly the writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.