RAMASWAMI,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dt. 28th May, 1965, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 192 of 1965. The respondent joined the IT Department as an upper division clerk. He was confirmed as an upper division clerk w.e.f. 1st Dec., 1949. On 25th Oct., 1951, he was promoted as inspector of income- tax in an officiating capacity. On 8th April, 1953, the respondent was " promoted to officiate until further orders as ITO, class II, grade III." The order of the CIT dt. 8th April, 1953, is to the following effect : "ORDER Establishment-Gazetted class II servants- Promotion, transfer and posting of. Shri Ranjit Singh Dhaba, officiating inspector, special survey circle. Amritsar, is promoted to officiate until further orders as ITO, class II, grade III, in the scale of Rs. 275-35-500-EBD 30-800 and posted as ITO, Special Survey Circle ; Patiala, with effect from the date he relieves S. Bahadur Singh since reverted. He is also appointed to hold charge of special survey circle, Patiala II, in addition to his own duties relieving G. R. Gurbar Singh since reverted. He should relieve both S. Bahadur Singh and S. Gurbar Singh as soon as possible but not later than 14th April, 1953. Sd. P. K. Sen Gupta, Commissioner of Income-tax."
(2.) ON 22nd May, 1964, the respondent was reverted from his officiating position of ITO, class II, as his work was not considered satisfactory. The order of reversion reads as follows : " ORDER Establishment-Gazetted class II ITO-Reversion of. Shri R. S. Dhaba, Officiating ITO, class II, at present employed as ITO, E-Ward, Ludhiana, having been found unsuitable after trial to hold the post of ITO, class II, is hereby reverted as officiating inspector, Income-tax, with immediate effect. Sd. S. R. Mehta, Commissioner of Income-tax." The respondent thereupon moved the High Court for grant of a writ to quash the order of reversion dt. 22nd May, 1964. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the order of reversion was made by way of punishment and the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution were attracted and the procedure contemplated by that article should have been followed. The single Judge allowed the writ petition by his judgment dt. 12th May, 1965, holding that the reversion of the respondent from the officiating position of ITO, class II, to a lower position of officiating Inspector of Income- tax was tantamount to a reduction in rank and the respondent was entitled to the safeguards provided in Art. 311 of the Constitution. The appellants took the matter in appeal under the Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed on 28th May, 1965.
(3.) IT was contended by Mr. A. K. Sen on behalf of the respondent that the order of reversion was made by way of punishment and the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution were attracted. It was pointed out that in his demi-official letter dt. 6th Feb., 1964, Mr. M. Kasivisvanatha Pillai, the then CIT, said that the respondent should be reverted because of the large number of complaints which the Department had received against the integrity of the respondent and the bad reports received by him from his superiors. It was said that the CIT was largely influenced by the complaints received against the respondent about his honesty while coming to the conclusion that he was not suitable for the post of ITO. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Sen that the order of reversion is punitive in character and that the procedure of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution is applicable to this case. In the order of reversion, dt. 22nd May, 1964, there is nothing to show that a stigma was attached to the respondent. No reference is made to the imputation on the integrity of the respondent and the only reason given is that the respondent was found unsuitable to hold the post of ITO, class II. It is well established that a Government servant who is officiating in a post has no right to hold it for all time and the Government servant who is given an officiating post holds it on the implied term that he will have to be reverted if his work was found unsuitable.;