Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was reverted to his substantive post as a P.D. teacher on the grade 30-60 on 22.1.1953 in pursuance of Ext. A which reads as follows: "Sri. T.K. Sebastian, permanent P.D. Teacher, and officiating Typist-Clerk, Cochin Magistrate's Court, on privilege leave, will be relieved forthwith, since Government have, in the G.P.L. Dis. 812/52/C.S. dated 22.1.53 ordered his reversion to his permanent place in the Education Department. 2. The officiating arrangements consequent on the grant of leave to Sri Sebastian will continue. Sd/- For Dt. Magistrate, Trichur. 21.1.1953. C. 875/52 Copy communicated to Clerk T.K. Sebastian on leave. He is informed that he is relieved from this office with effect from the forenoon of 29.1.53 to join duty in his permanent place in the Education Department". On that date he was officiating as a Typist-Clerk in the Second Class Magistrate's Court, Cochin, on the grade of 30-60 and was drawing Rs. 50/- per mensem in that grade. There is no contention on behalf of the State that the officiating post has been abolished and that the petitioner because of the shortness of his service was chosen for the reversion. 2. The question for determination in this petition is whether the reversion is a reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution which stipulates (subject to three provisos which are not material): "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him". 3.The learned Government Pleader has no case that any "opportunity of showing cause" as contemplated by the Article was ever given to the petitioner. His contention is that the order of reversion was not made as a measure of punishment and that the provisions of Art. 311 are hence not attracted. There can be no doubt that unless the reduction in rank was directed as a measure of punishment Art.311 will not come into operation and that this petition must be dismissed. 4. The circumstances in which the Government came to pass the order of reversion can be gathered from Ext. B. a confidential letter of the District Magistrate to the Chief Secretary to the Government, dated 31.12.1952. Ext. 4. The circumstances in which the Government came to pass the order of reversion can be gathered from Ext. B. a confidential letter of the District Magistrate to the Chief Secretary to the Government, dated 31.12.1952. Ext. B enters the subject of the letter as "Allegations against two Clerks of this Department enquiry into and reads as follows: "The allegations contained in the petition forwarded to me by the Government on the above reference were not enquired into by the Police through the District Superintendent of Police, Trichur. The persons mentioned in the petition are one Sri T.K. Sebastian, a Typist-Clerk of this Department now on leave, and Sry. V.E. Kalliani, a Copyist of the Trichur First Class Magistrate's Court. The enquiries caused to be made show that the immoral activities alleged to have been indulged in by them in the Government Farm at Ollukara are true. 2. In this connection, I may point out that Shri T.K. Sebastian is a permanent hand in the Education Department and he has been allowed to continue in this Department at his request in an officiating arrangement. His antecedents in this department have not been such as to warrant his retention here any longer. 3. This office file L. Dis. 5389/1122 shows that he had disobeyed the order of Sri C.V. Narayana Iyer, the then District Magistrate and he was consequently transferred from the Head Office as a punishment. Following his transfer, an important file of the Section where he was working before his transfer was found missing and it could not be traced in spite of the searches made by the Clerks of this office. Hence a memo had to be issued to the clerk directing him to appear in this office and account for the file on pain of severe action. Accordingly he appeared and produced the file to the surprise of all who had searched for the file. He was, however, left off at that time. 4. Again, while this Clerk was working in the Trichur Second Class Magistrate's Court, there were complaints against him for alleged bribery. Even though he was let off as a result of the enquiry, the then District Magistrate ordered that he should not be posted as a Bench Clerk in view of the complaints received against him. His requests to get his permanency shifted to this department from the Education Department were also refused. Even though he was let off as a result of the enquiry, the then District Magistrate ordered that he should not be posted as a Bench Clerk in view of the complaints received against him. His requests to get his permanency shifted to this department from the Education Department were also refused. 5. While he was working in the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Trichur, the Sub-Magistrate, Trichur reported on 10.7.51 that he had left arrears and that he was not a willing hand. I have also found him to be indifferent in his work. While I was the 1st Class Magistrate, Trichur I had occasion to note that he often feigned illness when there was pressure of work to be attended to and to enter on leave. On one occasion, in his application for extension of leave (casual leave) for two days on 18.8.50, he had been definitely informed that he would not be granted further extension of leave. In spite of this, he applied for 3 days' casual leave more from 21.8.50 on grounds of ill health. He was sent for as there were heavy arrears in his section. He appeared in the evening of 21.8.50 and leave for that day alone was granted, as he was found quite fit. 6. When he was transferred from the Trichur 1st Class Magistrate's Court to the Trichur 2nd Class Magistrate's court, he applied for earned leave for one month. At that time there was heavy work in the 2nd Class Magistrate's Court and the Magistrate was badly in need of a Typist-Clerk. The Clerk approached me and requested to cancel the transfer order. He also made representations through other persons to the same effect. On finding that his request would not be granted, he expressed a desire to apply for leave. I advised him not to apply for leave at that junction. Yet, he put in the leave application and then produced a medical certificate and even before the leave was granted, he entered on leave. Immediately after he entered on leave, I had occasion to see him going about on cycle even though he had stated that he was unwell even to go to the office. Since his conduct was not satisfactory he was given a warning in this office proceedings dated 7.7.52. Immediately after he entered on leave, I had occasion to see him going about on cycle even though he had stated that he was unwell even to go to the office. Since his conduct was not satisfactory he was given a warning in this office proceedings dated 7.7.52. He has put in a revision petition against this warning containing insinuations against me and also disrespectful and disloyal expressions unworthy of a subordinate. A copy of the review petition and the order thereon are herewith submitted for perusal. Incidently, it may be noted that the Lady Clerk concerned was also working in the Trichur 1st Class Magistrate's Court. 7. Subsequent to this, the Magistrate under whom he was working made a report requesting that he might be transferred from his court as his work and behaviour were not satisfactory. A copy of the report is also enclosed. Accordingly he was transferred from there. After he was relieved, he applied for leave with a medical certificate even without joining at the new station and entered on leave before it was sanctioned. He is now continuing on sick leave. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I think that it will not be in the interests of this Department to retain him here any longer. But, at the same time, I do not want to mar his future career. I, therefore, propose to transfer him to his permanent place in the Education Department as he is only an officiating hand here. I request that my proposal to relieve him from this Department may kindly be approved. 9. The petition forwarded to me by Government and copy of the report of the District Superintendent of Police, Trichur dated 21.11.1952 are enclosed." 5. So far as I can see the proposal of the District Magistrate in paragraph 8 of Ext. B to revert the petitioner to his substantive post in the Education Department was nothing but a proposal to punish him to that extent on the basis of the allegations he had found to be true and that when the Government approved of the proposal by their order dated 22.1.1953, they were approving a punishment as far as the petitioner was concerned. That the petitioner, in the normal course, would have been confirmed in the Magisterial department is clear from Ext. That the petitioner, in the normal course, would have been confirmed in the Magisterial department is clear from Ext. C, a memo dated 17.9.1124, in which he was given the option to continue in that department. By Ext. D the petitioner exercised his option in favour of such continuance: "In view of long service for about 5 and odd years in the Magisterial department, I prefer to have my permanency shifted to this department and confirmed as a Typist-Clerk in the grade of Rs. 30-75/-", and the Government's direction as per Ext. E dated 21.6.1949 was: "The question of transferring T.K. Sebastian will be considered after the enquiry into his conduct is completed. The District Magistrate is requested to raise the question at the proper time." 6. Cl. (2) of Art. 311 is almost identical with sub-s. 3 of S. 240 of the Government of India Act, 1936, but so far as I am aware there is no decision under that sub-section in which the question of "reduction in rank" has come up for discussion. The cases in which the question has been considered after Art. 311 came into force are also few in number. 7. In 1951 Allahabad 793 Jayanti Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, it was said that the words "dismissed" or "removed" or "reduced" in rank are "technical words used in cases in which the person's services are terminated for misconduct" and "If a person's services are sought to be terminated before the period of his service has expired on account of some misconduct, then, whether the employee is temporary or permanent, the procedure prescribed in Art. 311 has to be followed unless of course the case falls within any one of the three provisos to Cl. (2)." In 1952 Orissa 283 it was observed: "The word "rank" has not been defined, and if the strict dictionary meaning is to prevail, it may include both 'officiating rank' and 'substantial rank' of a Government servant." but the judgment did not proceed further with the discussion as on the facts of that case it was not necessary to do so. 8. 8. In 1952 Nagpur 288 M.V. Vichoray v. M.P. State the question directly arose for decision and the judges held: "The first question which arises for consideration is whether a reversion of a person officiating in a higher post to the substantive post held by him amounts to reduction in rank within the meaning of the expression used in Art. 311, Clause.(2) of the Constitution. In our opinion, if a person officiating in a higher post is reverted to his original post in the normal course and not by way of penalty he cannot be said to be reduced in rank. On the other hand, we are equally clear that where reversion is ordered as penalty it amounts to reduction in rank because such a reversion is apt to stand in the way of a Government servant in securing his promotion in the normal course". To the same effect are the observations in 58 C.W.N. 128 which followed A.I.R. 1952 Nagur 288. 9. In the light of what is stated above I allow the petition with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 100/-. Allowed.