K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The-petitioner was employed in the Agriculture Department of the State Government when he was appointed on deputation under the Mandi Parishad. The initial deputation was described to be for a period of three years but he has been ordered to be repatriated even before the expiry of three years The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition against the repatriation order is two-fold. Firstly, that although the period of three years had not expired and although several persons who had come on deputation in the Mandi Parishad earlier are continuing to serve on deputation the petitioner is being discriminated against by being sent back earlier. Secondly, that the order of repatriation is connected with an inquiry being held against the petitioner which has not even yet been dropped by the Mandi Parishad authorities, and that as such, the order is penal in nature.
(3.) A reference in this connection has been made to Annexures 5, 7, 9 and 10 which are orders dated October 17, 1982 issued to the petitioner by one Hayat Singh Rawat who described himself as "Lekha Adhikari/Janch Adhikari". Admittedly, no regular charge sheet was served on the petitioner, though by these communications the petitioner's explanation was called in ; respect of certain allegations. Although the official who issued these letters 1 has described himself as "Janch Adbikari" the communications do not-amount to charge-sheet. No regular disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner, and as such the question of dropping the disciplinary proceedings does not arise. Only a fact-finding inquiry, which is in the nature of preliminary inquiry was started, and before any decision to start a disciplinary inquiry could be taken, it was decided to repatriate the official to his parent department. Such a repatriation amounts to automatic dropping of the inquiry so far as the Mandi Parishad is concerned. It cannot therefore be said that the order of repatriation to the parent department is penal. The order is ex facie simpliciter. Actually as many as eight officials, including the petitioner were repatriated by a common order, and there is no connection between those eight officials inter se. The complaints against the petitioner may have formed a background motive for repatriation, but the repatriation cannot be said to be based on the fault of the petitioner as no final decision against him was taken on those complaints.;