Officiating reversion is not punishment unless it is substantively punitive or affects rank, pay, or prospects.

Reversion from an officiating higher post to the original substantive post is not, by itself, a reduction in rank by way of punishment. A temporary or officiating appointee has no substantive right to continue in the higher post, and reversion made in accordance with the terms of appointment is ordinarily non-punitive. It becomes punitive only if, in substance, it entails adverse consequences such as loss of pay, seniority, or future promotional prospects. A refusal to state reasons for reversion, or a later inquiry into suitability, does not by itself show that the reversion was punitive. The Court held that article 311 and section 240(3) were not attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reversion of an officer from an officiating higher post to his original post amounted to a reduction in rank by way of punishment so as to attract the protection of section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and article 311 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A person holding an officiating post has no substantive right to continue in that post. If the appointment is temporary or officiating, reversion to the original post in accordance with the terms of the appointment does not by itself amount to punishment. Such reversion becomes a reduction in rank only where it is in substance punitive, such as where it entails forfeiture of pay, seniority, or future promotional prospects. The refusal to communicate reasons for the reversion, or the existence of a later departmental inquiry into suitability, does not by itself establish that the earlier reversion was punitive. The inquiry here was directed to assessing suitability for the higher post and was not the foundation of a punishment order.

Conclusion: The reversion was not a reduction in rank by way of punishment and did not attract section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 or article 311 of the Constitution of India. The appeal succeeded.

---