JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “for quashing the impugned notification dated 04.12.2012 as contained in Anenxure-4 issued by respondent No.2 and consequential impugned order dated 04.12.2012 as contained in Annexue-5 passed by respondent District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Darbhanga, whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Circle Officer, Manigachhi and he has been sent back to his parent department (Rural Development Department), where from he was upgraded from the Supervisory post to the post of the Circle Officer by notification dated 30.06.2011 issued by respondent No.2. However, by the impugned notification and order dated 04.12.2012, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Circle Officer on political consideration, which is manifest from recital of the same.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 4.12.2012, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- ^^Jh veksy feJ] vapy vf/kdkjh] efuxkNh] njHkaxk ds fo:) la;qDr lfpo] [kkn~; ,oa miHkksDrk laj{k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad&4869 fnukad& 03-08-12 }kjk izfrosfnr vkjksi ds fy, Jh feJ dh lsok rRdky izHkko ls muds iSr`d foHkkx ¼xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx½ esa okil dh tkrh gSA 2- oSdfYid O;oLFkk ds rgr lekgrkZ] njHkaxk vius Lrj ls euhxkNh vapy dk izHkkj iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] euhxkNh dks nsuk lqfuf”pr djsaxs rFkk Jh feJ dks vfoyEc xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx esa ;ksxnku nsus gsrq fojfer djsaxsA 3- fu;fer vapy vf/kdkjh ds inLFkkiu ds i”pkr ;g O;oLFkk Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxhA 4- lekgrkZ] njHkaxk Jh feJ ds fo:) foHkkxh; i=kad&685 fu0dks0 fnukad& 06-09-12 ds vkyksd esa izi= ^^d** esa vkjksi i= xfBr dj lk{; lfgr bl foHkkx ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx dks miyC/k djk;saxsA 5- ;g vkns”k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw le>k tk;sxkA** has submitted that the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department on certain allegation and, therefore, when he was never given any show-cause notice, such order, being punitive in nature, cannot be sustained. 4. In this regard, he has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 3.9.2012 in LPA NO. 1188 of 2012 (Narmdeshwar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 4. In this regard, he has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 3.9.2012 in LPA NO. 1188 of 2012 (Narmdeshwar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that while the petitioner was serving as an Extension Officer, Basanput, he was posted as Circle Officer, Manigachi by a notification dated 30.6.2011 which was purely by way of an interim arrangement due to paucity of officials in the cadre of Circle Inspector and other equivalent posts. It has further been explained that the petitioner who belongs to the cadre of employees of the Rural Development Department in fact was working on deputation and in course of his working at Manigachi, he was found to be indulging in gross irregularities. Reliance in this case has been placed on a fact finding report dated 29.6.2012 submitted by the two officials on special duty. It has been explained that after receipt of the aforementioned report in the Department of Food and Consumer Protection , it was decided that the petitioner on deputation should not be allowed to continue any longer on the post of Circle Officer at Manigachi and as such, the impugned order was passed terminating his deputation as also for initiating a departmental proceeding against him for the misconduct committed at Manigachi. 5. When this counter affidavit was filed enclosing the fact finding report dated 29.6.2012 which went to show that the petitioner was not only allowed to remain present in course of enquiry held by the two officers on special duty of Food and Consumer Protection Department but he had also furnished a few documents but had mostly withheld on the ground of there being not available, this Court was not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the order of repatriation was passed on the basis of an enquiry held behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner however had asserted that the statement of the petitioner in the writ application in paragraph no.10 had not been controverted wherein it had clearly stated that he had not been given any show-cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however had asserted that the statement of the petitioner in the writ application in paragraph no.10 had not been controverted wherein it had clearly stated that he had not been given any show-cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order. 6. This Court, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties on 11.1.2013, had passed a reasoned order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “In view of the counter affidavit and specially the joint enquiry report of Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh and Mr. Satya Prakash, both Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D.) in the department of Food and Consumer Protection (Annexure-A), it becomes clear that whatever enquiry was conducted by them was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, inasmuch as the aforesaid two members of the Enquiry Committee have clearly mentioned in their enquiry report that they had met the petitioner and had sought certain information from him. In view of this it prima facie appears that the statement of the petitioner in paragraph no.10 of the writ petition that he had no notice or knowledge of the fact finding enquiry is a half truth statement. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, wants to explain this aspect by filing reply to the counter affidavit and its enquiry report (Annexure „A?). For this purpose he prays and is allowed a week?s adjournment. Let a copy of rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the petitioner be served on the counsel for the State within a period of one week, whereafter the same will be brought to the notice of Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh and Mr. Satya Prakash the two O.S.D. and they will file their reply on affidavit as to the mode in which they had conducted enquiry and had submitted the report on 29.6.2012, as contained in Annexure „A? to the counter affidavit. Such affidavits of both the persons will be enclosed and made part of the supplementary counter affidavit to be sworn by an office of the department. This exercise must be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of service of the reply of the counter affidavit by the petitioner.” 7. to the counter affidavit. Such affidavits of both the persons will be enclosed and made part of the supplementary counter affidavit to be sworn by an office of the department. This exercise must be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of service of the reply of the counter affidavit by the petitioner.” 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a supplementary counter affidavit wherein both the officer on special duty who had conducted the fact finding enquiry have sworn affidavit which has been made part of the supplementary counter affidavit. Paragraph no. 3, 4 & 5 of such affidavit being relevant and in fact common in the affidavits of both the officers on special duty, namely, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh and Sri Satya Prakash is quoted here-in-below:- “3. That it is stated that in compliance with the direction of Principal Secretary of the Department, a fact finding enquiry was conducted by us. In course of compliance of above direction, we reached the Block Head Quarter, Manigachhi, Darbhanga on dated 25.06.2012. We contacted the Circle Officer, who was authorized to look after the supply works in the Block as Block Supply Officer also w.e.f. 13.07.2011. 4. That it is humbly submitted that taking into account the complaints made and irregularities in supply works in the Block, it was necessary to gather some relevant documents/papers to ascertain the working pattern in the Block vis-à-vis the existing rules/order/directions/instructions issued by the Govt. for smooth functioning of supply works in the State. Accordingly, we asked the C.O.cum Supply Officer to hand over papers regarding monthly sub-allotment of foodgrains and K.Oil, list of refund coupon, against which the concerned beneficiaries had received the commodity such as food grains and K.Oil. But the petitioner did not extend desired co-operation in as much as, only few documents related to sub allotment orders of foodgrains and Kl Oil were supplied to the enquiry team and the rest major documents like list of beneficiaries, public complaint register, different utilization forms used for coupon regulations were not made over to us on the pretext of their non availability with him. The Enquiry Officers have made few findings as mentioned in enquiry report. Thus, it is evident that serious lapses and dereliction of duty have been committed by the petitioner as incharge of supply officer in the Block. 5. The Enquiry Officers have made few findings as mentioned in enquiry report. Thus, it is evident that serious lapses and dereliction of duty have been committed by the petitioner as incharge of supply officer in the Block. 5. That it is further submitted that in order to ascertain the truth behind the irregularities, the enquiry team did contact the petitioner who was duty bound to furnish the desired information. Moreover, he must be aware of the facts which are required to the furnished while performing the duty of supply works in the Block. The petitioner was present all through with the enquiry team at the Block Head quarter and thus he was fully aware of and conversant with the procedure applied by the enquiry team. After getting the list of dealers made over by the petitioner, we visited the field and enquired from some of the beneficiaries and recorded their statements. It is submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of fact finding enquiry conducted by the enquiry team and as such he cannot deny knowledge of enquiry. He also tried his level best to thwart the completion of enquiry. Hence, the plea of alleged violation of natural justice is just theoretical rather than genuine.” 8. After this affidavit was filed, the petitioner had also filed reply to the counter affidavit wherein apart from other things, it has been stated as follows:- “6. That, the petitioner was not aware about the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent Officer on Special Duty of the Food and Consumer Protection Department though, on arrival of the said respondents the petitioner furnished relevant information as also monthly allotment order concerning food grains and Kerosene Oil. The Enquiry Report as contained in Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit further reveals that the petitioner clearly stated regarding the documents which were not available in the office and as the same were taken away by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darhanga for their enquiry, comparison etc. since the enquiry Officer did not disclose as to how and why the enquiry is being conducted, he felt that it is a routine enquiry. since the enquiry Officer did not disclose as to how and why the enquiry is being conducted, he felt that it is a routine enquiry. However, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 29.06.2012 a letter dated 03.08.2012 as contained in Annexure-3 of the writ application was written to the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department for taking disciplinary action against him by placing him under suspension as also to return back to his Parent Department.” 9. Thus from the combined reading of the affidavits of the parties, this much becomes clear that when both the officer on special duty of the Department of Food and Public Distribution System in which the petitioner was working on deputation at Manigachi had held the fact finding enquiry, the petitioner was present and had been given at least an opportunity to place his view point. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner did not reveal these things in the writ application and had created an impression in paragraph no.10 of the writ application that some political vendetta had led to his un-ceremonial dispatch from Manigachi. That, however, does not seem to be correct. The petitioner, an employee of the State Government in the officer rank, was expected to be at least fair and truthful. He has certainly failed to give a true picture. It is not in doubt that the petitioner is an employee in the officer rank of Rural Development Department and, therefore, he could not have claimed any right to continue on deputation in the Department of Food and Consumer Protection. The return service of the petitioner from the Department of Food and Consumer Protection to his parent department cannot be treated to be an order of punishment. 10. As with regard to the grievance of the petitioner relating to initiating of a departmental proceeding on the basis of the findings arrived in the fact finding report of Enquiry Officer on special duty, all that this Court can say that they have to be gone into in the departmental proceeding for which memo of charge has admittedly been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner will have the opportunity to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the authority of the Food and Consumer Protection Department and, therefore, that issue cannot be prejudged at this stage. 11. The petitioner will have the opportunity to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the authority of the Food and Consumer Protection Department and, therefore, that issue cannot be prejudged at this stage. 11. The reliance placed on the order of the Division Bench in the case of Narmedeshwar Jha also is also wholly misplaced. In the case of Narmedeshwar Jha (supra), no opportunity was given to the him to explain the allegations but in the present case, the petitioner was given an opportunity at the stage of fact finding report. Moreover, the fact finding report alone did not constitute the reason for repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department, inasmuch as, his performance at Manigachi was also reviewed by the authority of Food and Public Distribution Department and since his performance was also found to be unsatisfactory, he had been sent back to his parent department. This aspect of the matter has been explained in paragraph nos. 9, 11 & 17 to the counter affidavit which has not been controverted by the petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit. 12. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 4.12.2012 would amount to premature termination of the deputation of the petitioner also in the fact of the case does not seem to be correct. It has to be noted that when the Revenue and Land Reforms Department had sought to make the deputation of the petitioner by a notification dated 30.6.2011, it had not fixed any tenure so as to create a rider to premature termination of deputation. It is well settled that when the order of deputation does not envisage a period of deputation, the question of premature deputation does not arise. This Court is not aware as to what were the terms and conditions of the deputation of Narmedeshwar Jha, the writ petitioner of LPA No. 1188 of 2012. As a matter of fact, in the case of Narmedeshwar Jha, the action was taken by the District Magistrate for framing of charge on the basis of some fact finding report. 13. This Court is not aware as to what were the terms and conditions of the deputation of Narmedeshwar Jha, the writ petitioner of LPA No. 1188 of 2012. As a matter of fact, in the case of Narmedeshwar Jha, the action was taken by the District Magistrate for framing of charge on the basis of some fact finding report. 13. Here, the case however is converse inasmuch as the State Government in the Department of Food and Public Distribution System on receiving of the complaint against the petitioner had sent a team of officials of two officers on special duty and, therefore, there was no pressure exerted by the department of any of the local officer. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner also has not made any allegation against those two officers on special duty holding the fact finding enquiry and has confined his allegation on the local MLA, this Court, in absence of such local MLA being impleaded as party to this writ application, cannot even otherwise go into the question of malice. 14. As noted above, the impugned order passed in the month of December, 2012 has remained in operation and the petitioner stands repatriated to his parent department. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department to ensure that a departmental proceeding against the petitioner as contemplated in the impugned order must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of a copy of this order. 15. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.