ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure-P/1) by which services of the petitioner have been directed to repatriate to his original department namely Apex Bank. 2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that eight months prior to passing of impugned order viz. 18.3.2010, petitioner was sent on deputation in the District Central Cooperative Bank, Bhind (respondent No. 2), hence there was no occasion for calling the petitioner back to his original depm1ment within eight months. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme namely National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Annexure-P/2) petitioner was sent on deputation and it has been mentioned in this Scheme that an employee who shall be sent on deputation, their deputation period should not be less than 3 years and in this regard my attention has been drawn to Annexure-P/5 dated 1.6.2009. Learned counsel further submits that it appears that under confusion the petitioner has been called back to parent department for the simple reason that on bare perusal of return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and particularly Annexure-R/1 dated 30.8.2010, it can be visualized that in the Budget Session 2010 (which would come in the month of February, 2010) some irregularities committed by the employees who were sent on deputation were pointed out in the Legislative Assembly and therefore the petitioner has been made pivot on the basis of question put in the Assembly. Learned counsel further submits that such apprehension is baseless because vide Annexure-P/8 dated 18.3.2010 petitioner was deputed in the Bank of respondent No. 4 and therefore the question which was raised in the budget Sessions viz. February 2010 would not come in his way. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the mandate given in Annexure-P/2 and PIS the petitioner ought not to have been called before the expiry of period of deputation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued in support of the action of respondent No.1, 4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On bare perusal of order dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure-P/8) it is gathered that petitioner was sent on deputation in the Apex Bank and was posted at Bhind in the Bank of respondent No.2. 5. On bare perusal of order dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure-P/8) it is gathered that petitioner was sent on deputation in the Apex Bank and was posted at Bhind in the Bank of respondent No.2. On bare perusal of resolution dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure-P/9) it is gathered that employees who would be sent on deputation, their deputation period would be three years and by accepting the same, the petitioner was sent to the Apex Bank and in this regard Annexure-P/10 dated 15.7.2010 may be perused. 6. So far as star question raised in the Assembly is concerned, suffice is to say that in Budget Session of 2010 it was informed that the employees serving in the District Central Cooperative Bank, Bhind have committed certain misconduct. Needless to say, the budget session commences in the month of February, hence according to me, the question which was raised must be for the period earlier to February 2010 and since the petitioner was sent on deputation on 18.3.2010, therefore, the question of calling the employee of Apex Bank back to parent department on account of certain misconduct committed by those employees cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. 7. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Needless to say that in consequent to impugned order if the petitioner is relieved, his services would be restored. No order as to costs.