V. RAMASWAMI, J.

(1) THIS appeal is brought by special leave from the judg- ment of the Punjab High court dated May 28, 1965 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 192 of 1965.

(2) THE respondent joined the Income-tax Department as an Upper Division Clerk. He was confirmed as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 1/12/1949. On 25/10/1951 he was promoted as Inspector of Income-tax in an officiating capacity. On 8/04/1953 the respondent was "promoted to officiate until further orders as Income-tax Officer, Class II, Grade III". The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 8/04/1953 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 Income- tax Officer, Class II, Grade III in the scale of Rs. 278-25-560-EB-30-800 and posted as Income-tax Officer, 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 S. Gurbax Singh since reverted.

HE should relieve both S. Bahadur Singh and S. Gurbax Singh as soon as possible but not later than 14/04/1953. Sd/- P. K. Sen Gupta, Commisssioner of Income-tax."

On 22/05/1964 the respondent was reverted from his officiating posi- tion of Income-tax Officer, Class II as his work was not considered satis- factory. The order of reversion reads as follows :

"ORDER Establishment Gazetted Class II Income-tax Officer-Reversion of- Shri R. S. Dhaba, officiating Income-tax Officer, Glass II at present employed as Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, Ludhiana, having been found unsuitable after trial to hold the post of Income-tax Officer, Glass 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 dated 22/05/1964. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the order of reversion was made by way of punishment and the provisions of Article 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 dated 12/05/1965 holding that the reversion of the respondent from the officiating position of Income-tax Officer, 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 Article 311 of the Constitution. The appellants took the matter in appeal under the Letters Patent but the appeal was dismissed on 28/05/1965.

(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 Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were attracted. It was pointed out that in his demi-official letter dated 6/02/1964 Mr. M. Kasivisvanatha Pillal, the then Commissioner of Income-tax, 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 Commissioner 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 Income-tax Officer. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Sen that the order of reversion is punitive in character and that the procedure of Article 311(2) of the Constitution is applicable -to this case. In the order of reversion elated 22/05/1964 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 reaso