ORDER : The petitioner herein has filed this petition against the two documents, a notice and an order both dated 2-3-2017 passed by respondent No. 2 Collector, Satna. The Notice is Show-Cause-Notice annexure-P/7 and the resultant order annexure-P/6 is of repatriation. The matter relates to forwarding of the derogatory message on whatsapp from the Petitioner's mobile phone. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Adhyapak vide order dated 20-9-2009 and subsequently, after going through the selection process the petitioner was appointed on deputation as BRCC (Block Resource Center Coordinator) on 25-7-2015. In pursuance thereof the petitioner was relieved from his post as Sr. Adhyapak and joined on the same date i.e. on 29-7-2015 as BRCC. Until now the petitioner was working diligently and there was no complaint against him. It is further submitted that an allegation is made against the petitioner that a message annexure-P/5, which was derogatory to the Hindu religion was forwarded by him on a social platform of internet called Whatsapp to other employees. The message is claimed to be anti-Brahmin and mentions the name of Babasaheb Ambedkar and Kashiram as leaders who have been claimed as the saviors of S.C., S.T., O.B.C. and minorities. The petitioner has denied that he has ever forwarded such a message and it is further submitted by him that he was busy in the management of Pratibha Parv from 18-1-2017 to 20-1-2017 and had stayed in the office till 09:00 pm on account of excessive work. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had to charge his mobile phone in the office also as its battery life was very short. When the petitioner explained these facts to other authorities the matter subsided but still a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2-3-2017 in which he was asked to show cause as to why his services be not suspended and on 2-3-2017 itself the petitioner was repatriated back to his parent department on the charge of sending message on whatsapp which created disturbance to public peace and harmony despite the fact that on 2-3-2017 itself petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide Annexure P/8 explaining his stand but the same has not been considered. 3. 3. It is further submitted that his phone was kept in the office plugged in for charging and as such was accessible to many who may have forwarded the message from his mobile. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and was passed without initiating any enquiry against the petitioner and without following the Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India, reported in 2013 (1) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 3 : (2012) 7 SCC 757 . 5. In return, it is submitted by the respondents that the complaints of the petitioner were received by the Collector and also by the local M.L.A. hence a preliminary enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3 i.e. District Project Coordinator and in this enquiry, statement of three witnesses were also recorded who have deposed against the petitioner. The enquiry found that the messages were issued from the petitioner's mobile number on 17-1-2017 at 20:07 hrs, 19-1-2017 at 19:51 hrs and 20-1-2017 at around 7:20 hrs. A copy of the preliminary enquiry report has also been filed as Annexure R/2. Thus the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner's act was unwarranted, uncalled for and unethical as undesirable messages were forwarded by him. It is further submitted that vide Annexure R/2, the petitioner himself has admitted the charges levelled against him. The reliance is also placed by the respondents in the case of Prakash Narayan v. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No. 4253/2013(s). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has indeed sent messages from his mobile number, which fact has also been admitted by him in Annexure R/2 filed along with the reply and in his reply, he has categorically stated that the messages though was sent from his mobile phone but was not sent by him and thus the petitioner has feigned ignorance in respect of the charges levelled against him for forwarding the undesirable message on whatsapp which went viral in social media. 8. 8. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as BRCC (Block Resource Center Coordinator) only after he participated in the selection process and was duly selected. 9. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order, and so far as the order annexure-P/6 dated 2-3-2017 is concerned, it is also apparent that it has no reference of the reply submitted by the petitioner. In fact, the show cause notice was issued in respect of his suspension but instead of suspension, he has been repatriated. 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India, 2013 (1) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 3 : (2012) 7 SCC 757 , the Apex Court has held as under: “13. Ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organisation to another, or one Government to another; in such case a deputationist has no legal right in the post. Such deputationist has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. In such case, deputation does not result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the person continues to be a member of the parent service. 14. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment (recruitment’) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work.” (emphasis supplied) 11. As already observed, the petitioner was appointed on deputation on the basis of selection only and his order of repatriation has been passed without affording him any opportunity of hearing and in fact, the show cause notice was issued for suspension only but instead order of repatriation has been passed. In such circumstances, the manner in which the petitioner's order of repatriation dated 2-3-2017 has been passed, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 12. The decision as cited by the respondents in the case of Prakash Narayan v. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No. 4253/2013(s) is also of no help to them for the reason that the facts of this case are distinguishable. In the case of Prakash Narayan, it is not a case of deputation after selection, whereas in the case at hand it is a case of deputation after selection only and as such the petitioner ought not to have been removed in an unceremonious way and should have been granted a proper opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of repatriation. 13. In the circumstances, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, consequently impugned order Annexure-P/6 dated 2-3-2017 is hereby quashed. A liberty however is reserved to the respondents to take the appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving him a show cause notice and following the principles of natural justice. No costs.