M. C. PATHAK, J.: By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-8-1968 purported to have been issued on behalf of the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway reverting the petitioner from the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (North) to the post of District Engineer in the Senior Scale. 2. The petitioner's case is that after gra­duating himself in Science from the Calcutta University, he obtained the B. Sc. Degree in Engineering of the London University and thereafter became an Associate of the City and Guilds of London Institute. He joined the Railway Service as an Assistant Engineer on 16th February 1942 in the South Indian Railway and with effect from 1-8-44 he was treated as a permanent Assistant Engineer for the purposes of pay, leave, subscription of Provident Fund etc. consequent on the suspension of lien of one Assistant Engineer who was lent to War Service. The petitioner was duly confirmed as an Assistant Engineer with effect from 1-3-45 as per Railway Board's letter No. E/44/TR.44/2 dated 14-4-49 and prior to his confirmation in the post of Assistant Engineer he was promoted to officiate as District Engineer in the Senior Scale on the East Indian Railway. He con­tinued to officiate as District Engineer conti­nually with effect from 21-10-48 till his con­firmation as District Engineer in the Senior Scale with effect from 15-1-58. As per Railway Board's letter dated 7-4-62, he was appointed to officiate as Deputy Chief Engi­neer on the Northeast Frontier Railway and he joined the said post on 22-5-62. While holding the post of Deputy Chief Engineer on the Northeast Frontier Railway, the peti­tioner held the post of the Deputy General Manager of that Railway, a tenure post (ex cadre post) for the period from 16-9-64 to 10-1-67 as per orders of the General Manager. While the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Chief Engineer, he was selected for training in 41st Session commencing from 8-5-67 to 21-6-67 at the Indian Railway School of Advance Permanent Way Engineer­ing, Poona and he was also deputed to at­tend the Appreciation Course at the Defence Institute of Works Study, Mussourie com­mencing from 26-2-68 to 2-3-68 in term of Railway Board's letter dated 3-2-68. The petitioner was also entrusted for some time to look after the work of the Chief Engineer and sign all documents and papers on his behalf during his absence on duty as well as on leave. That the post of Deputy Chief Engineer on the Northeast Frontier Railway was a permanent one. The scale of pay of the Chief Engineer is from Rs. 1800 to Rs. 2250 and that of the Deputy Chief Engineer is from Rs. 1300 to Rs. 1600 and that of the District Engineer in the Senior Scale is from Rs. 700 to Rs. 1250. The petitioner on his appointment to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer was given a basic salary of Rs. 1300 and in 1965 he reached the maximum of that scale, namely Rs. 1600 by getting usual in­crements. That as per Statutory Rules gov­erning the service conditions of the petitioner, he was allowed leave salary in the scale of pay fixed for the Deputy Chief Engineer and was allowed Provident Fund benefits as allowable to the Deputy Chief Engineer hold­ing the post substantively. 3. That the petitioner all of a sudden received the Memorandum dated 3-8-68 pur­ported to be issued on behalf of the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway where­by the petitioner was informed that he had been reverted from the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (North) to Senior Scale District Engineer and that the said order had been issued with the approval of the Railway Board. It was further mentioned that the order should take immediate effect and by the said order Shri D. J. Chatterjee, officiat­ing Deputy Chief Engineer (Bridges), an officer much junior to the petitioner, was post, ed temporarily as officiating Deputy Chief Engineer (North). A copy of the said order is Annexure IV to the petition. 4. The petitioner has in this writ peti­tion challenged this order of reversion from the post of Deputy Chief Engineer to that of Senior Scale District Engineer on the following grounds: (1) that the reversion has not been made by the competent authority; (2) that the reversion is tantamount to reduction in rank and as such the order is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India; and (3) that the order is also bad on the ground of malafide exercise of power. 5. The admitted position is that the Rail­way Board is the appointing authority in the instant case. 5. The admitted position is that the Rail­way Board is the appointing authority in the instant case. As such the order of reversion cannot be passed by an authority subordinate to the Railway Board. The impugned order dated 3-8-68 may be quoted: "NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MEMORANDUM 1. Shri D. J. Chatterjee, Offg. Dy. C. E. (Bridges) is temporarily posted as Offg. Dy. C. E. (North) in addition to his own duties vice Shri A. N. Sur, Offg. Dy. C. E. (North). 2. On relief by Shri Chatterjee, Shri Sur is reverted to Senior Scaje and is posted as Estate Officer vice Shri S. Venkataraman- Posting order for Shri Venkataraman, Estate Officer follows: This issues with the approval of the Rail­way Board. Orders should take immediate effect Sd. R. K. Mallick For General Manager (P) No. E/283/III/31/PVI(O) Pandu, dated 3rd August, 1968." The order shows that it was issued with the approval of the Railway Board. The order was signed for the General Manager. So at the most this order can be said to have been passed by the General Manager with the ap­proval of the Railway Board. The language of the order goes to show that the order was passed by the General Manager with the approval of the Railway Board, that is to say, that the authority passing the order is the General Manager and Railway Board is the approving authority. The authority passing the order could not be the approving authority. 6. The point that falls for determination Is whether this order was passed by the Railway Board and communicated by the General Manager or it was passed by the General Manager and approved by the Rail­way Board. 7. Mr. H. Chatterjee, General Manager of Northeast Frontier Railway had sworn an affidavit in this case on 13-11-68 contesting the petition. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, it is stated that the reversion of the petitioner to the senior scale was done by the order of the Railway Board and the said order was communicated to the petitioner through a memorandum signed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Northeast Frontier Railway for General Manager (P). A copy of the order of the Railway Board has been an­nexed as Annexure 'A' to his affidavit and this order is dated 2-8-68. A copy of the order of the Railway Board has been an­nexed as Annexure 'A' to his affidavit and this order is dated 2-8-68. An affidavit was filed by Sri C. S. Parameswaran, Secretary, Railway Board on 9-11-68 wherein it is stated that the order No. E(O)/I-68PM6/115 dated 2nd August, 1968 marked as Annexure 'A' to the affidavit affirmed by the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, was issued by the Railway Board as an office arrangement reverting the petitioner to his substantive post in the Senior Scale because he was considered to be unsuitable to conti­nue in that post. 8. From the above facts, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the impugned order dated 3-8-68 was issued to the petitioner by the General Manager in pursuance of the order of the Railway Board dated 2-8-68. An affidavit in reply was sworn by the petitioner on 15-11-68 wherein it is stated in para 4 that the Memo dated 3-8-68 was issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer purporting to act for the General Manager but the said memo could not have been and was not issued with the approval of the Railway Board in­asmuch as the letter dated 2-8-68 of the Railway Board reached the office of the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Rail­way, Pandu, only on 6-8-68 and that it showed that the impugned order of reversion was not passed by the Railway Board. 0. The statement that the Railway Board's order reached the office of the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Pandu on 6-8-68 has not been contradicted. It thus appears that on 8-8-68 when the impugned order was passed or communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Northeast Frontier Railway for Gene­ral Manager (P), the Railway Board's order dated 2-8-68 was not before him. A re­joinder to the Affidavit-in-Reply was sworn by the General Manager on 25-11-68 and filed in the Court on 29-11-68. It thus appears that on 8-8-68 when the impugned order was passed or communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Northeast Frontier Railway for Gene­ral Manager (P), the Railway Board's order dated 2-8-68 was not before him. A re­joinder to the Affidavit-in-Reply was sworn by the General Manager on 25-11-68 and filed in the Court on 29-11-68. In this re­joinder the General Manager stated as fol­lows:- "I further say that the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway was at New Delhi on 1st August, 1968 in connection with official business of-the Railway, when Secre­tary, Railway Board handed over a confi­dential communication to Respondent No. 1 containing the decision of the Railway Board regarding reversion of the petitioner from the post of the Deputy Chief Engineer to a post in the Senior Scale." A copy of the said confidential letter has been filed as Annexure *B' to the rejoinder. The Court, however, cannot take any cogni­zance of this confidential letter and it is not understood why this confidential letter was issued on 1st August, 1968 when the order of the Railway Board itself was issued on 2nd August, 1968. The undue hurry in issuing this confidential letter remains un­explained. In this connection, our attention' has been drawn to the following passage in the case of Commissioner of Police v. got-dhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SG 16:- "An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise o| a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he intended to do. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise o| a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are ad­dressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." The Board's order dated 2-8-68 is the public order and it may' be considered by the Court It is foun4 that this order reached the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Pandu only, on 6-8-68 which makes it clear that where the order dated 3-8-68 was issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Northeast Frontier Railway for the General Manager (P), the Board's order dated 2-8-68 was not there. 10. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the Railway Board passed the order on 2-8-68 and when the order dated 8-8-68 was passed, the Railway Board's order was in existence though it might not have reached the General Managers Office at Pandu wherefrom the order dated 8-8-68 was issued. His submission is that at best this may be an irregularity but it would not vitiate the order dated S-&-68. We are un­able to accept this submission. Admittedly the order of reversion has to be passed by the appointing authority, which is, in the instant case, the Railway Board. Under section 8 of the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905, the order has to be signed either by the Secretary to the Railway Board or by any other person authorised by the said Railway Board to act in its behalf in respect of the matters to which such authorisation relates. The order dated 3-8-68 was passed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Northeast Frontier Railway on behalf of the General Manager (P). The letter dated 2-8-68 ad­dressed to the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon is to the follow­ing effect: "The Railway Board have decided that Shri A. N. Sur, Officiating Deputy Chief Engineer, Northeast Frontier Railway, should be reverted to Senior Scale under intimation to this office." This letter was signed by the Under-Secretary, Railway Board. The letter dated 2-8-68 ad­dressed to the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon is to the follow­ing effect: "The Railway Board have decided that Shri A. N. Sur, Officiating Deputy Chief Engineer, Northeast Frontier Railway, should be reverted to Senior Scale under intimation to this office." This letter was signed by the Under-Secretary, Railway Board. Even assuming that the authority vested in the Secretary may also be exercised by the Under-Secretary in the matter of signing the Railway Board's order, there is no direction in the order it­self that in the light of the Board's order, any other person except the General Manager is authorised to issue the order of reversion^ In any view of the matter, the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer was not authorised to pass the order of reversion by the Board and the authority that was delegated to the General Manager by the Board in the Board's letter dated 2-8-68 cannot further be delegated by the General Manager to some other autho­rity. Secondly, when the order dated 8-8-68 was passed, the authority passing the order had not the Board's letter dated 2-8-68 before it In the circumstances, it must be held that the order dated 3-8-68 reverting the petitioner was without jurisdiction and it was not the Board's order and as such it must be quashed. 11. The second submission of Mr. Lahiri the learned counsel appearing for the peti­tioner, is that the impugned order of rever­sion is not a simple order of reversion but it is in fact an order of reduction in rank by way of punishment and it attracts Arti­cle 311 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the instant case no notice was issued to the petitioner before he was reverted to the lower rank and as such the order is bad for offending Article 311 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submitted that reversion per se did not amount to re­duction which might attract Article 311, but reversion when made by way of punishment attracted Article 311, for example, (a) when the person reverted from the officiating post acquired certain right by virtue of holding the officiating post; and (b) when the rever­sion from the officiating post entailed some punishment'. 12. 12. The learned counsel drew our atten­tion to Annexure VI to the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner, which is dated 21-5-56 wherein the following passage occurs:- "At the end of the extended period of six months, i.e., of a total officiating ser­vice of 18 months, either the person should be declared suitable for retention in the grade or should be reverted because he is unsuit­able. Any person who is permitted to conti­nue to officiate beyond 18 months cannot in future be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in the D. and A. Rules. This circular letter is addressed to the Gene­ral Manager, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur. An­nexure VII to the affidavit-in-reply is another circular dated 17-5-58 issued by the Director Railway Board to the General Managers, All Indian Railways (except Southern Railway). The circular refers to a case of an officer promoted to an administrative grade who did not earn good reports thereafter, but as the Railway concerned did not come up to the Board within 18 months after promotion for his reversion on the ground of unsuitability as per instructions contained in Direc­tor, Establishments, Confidential Letter No. E.55RG6-26 dated 21-5-56, referred to here­inbefore, the Board's view was as follows:- The result is that officer concerned can­not now be reverted in view of the instruc­tions contained in the D. O. for unsatisfac­tory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules." Annexure VIlI to the affidavit-in-reply is an­other confidential letter of the Railway Board circulated to the General Managers of all Indian Railways and others. In this circular letter, the Railway Board pointed out that the instructions given in the D. O. letter dated 21-5-56 were cancelled by the Board's letter No. E(D & A) 60RG6-5 dated 1-2-60 and 14-5-60 and they thereafter directed as follows:- "The Board have re-considered the matter and feel that it would not be correct to effect such reversions after prolonged officia­ting periods. They have, therefore, decided again that in future, any person who is per­mitted to officiate beyond 18 months can­not be reverted for unsatisfactory work with­out following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules." 13. From Annexure VIII it is quite clear that the Board's instructions are that no person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months could be reverted for unsatisfac­tory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. From Annexure VIII it is quite clear that the Board's instructions are that no person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months could be reverted for unsatisfac­tory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. In the rejoinder, the Secretary to the Railway Board stated that the petitioner started working in the Junior Administrative Grade from 22-5-62 and continued in that grade till he was reverted on 3-8-68, that the circulars cited by the petitioner in para­graph 3 of his affidavit-in-reply were in the nature of administrative instructions to the General Managers and were not applicable in the case of those incumbents whose pro­motions and reversions were directly con­trolled by the Railway Board and he was not therefore entitled to the benefit of the said circulars. Thereafter the Secretary to the Railway Board referred to the Railway Board's letter No. E(D & A) 65RG6-24 dated 22-11-1966, a copy of which has been an­nexed as Annexure 'C to the rejoinder, which is to the following effect:- "The General Managers, All Indian Railways etc. Sub: Reversion on grounds of general unsuitability of staff officiating in a higher grade of post. Reference Board's letter of even num­ber dated 9-6-65 on the above subject lay­ing down that any person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months cannot be re­verted for unsatisfactory work without fol­lowing the procedure in the D. & A. Rules. The Board nave considered the matter fur­ther and decided that while there should be no departure from the procedure laid down in the letter referred to above, General Managers may, in very special circumstances, revert an officiating employee in relaxation of the time limit of 18 months, in exercise of their personal judgment" The submission that these circulars were not applicable to the cases of those incumbents whose promotions or reversions were directly controlled by the Railway Board cannot be opted. From these circulars it appears t the Railway Board definitely laid down that officers promoted to officiate beyond 18 months should not be reverted for unsatis­factory work without following the proce­dure laid down in the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and it does not stand to reason that this very salutary principle had been laid down by the Railway Board only for the guidance of the General Managers and other officers below them and not for the Railway Board itself. Moreover, in the instant case, the Board have the power to promote and demote and, therefore, the Board have the power to lay down the policy and the rules to exercise all those powers. 14. Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel then submitted that the confidential letter dated 1st August 1968 from the Secretary to the Railway Board disclosed that the petitioner was to be reverted to Senior Scale because of his continued unsatisfactory performance over a period of years. This, according to the learned counsel, is in substance a rever­sion by way of punishment The petitioner was permitted to hold the officiating post for more than six years and after such a long period he was reverted on the ground of unsatisfactory performance over a period of years and this was a stigma in his service which would block his future promotion. 15. In para 9 of the petition it has been alleged that as a result 01 the order of rever­sion the monthly pension of the petitioner would be reduced from Rs. 600 to Rs. 469 and that his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity would be reduced from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 18,750 and that the order would entail sub­stantial loss in the matter of Provident Fund deposit as also by way of leave salary to the tune of several thousands. 16. In this connection, the learned coun­sel has drawn our attention to Rule 2544-B. (C.S.R.486-B) of the Indian Railway Estab­lishment Code, Volume II. The interest created under Rule 2544-B. (1) (a) is in favour of a person who holds a higher tem­porary post continuously for not less than three years and who retires or dies while so officiating or holding the higher post. This Rule creates some benefit to an officer who officiates in a higher post continuously for three years or more and dies or retires while so officiating. In the instant case, the petitioner officiated in the higher post for more than six years and he would have got the benefit under clause (a), had he died or retired before the order of reversion. In the circumstances, it must be held that the reversion order has entailed substantial losses to the petitioner. 17. In the instant case, the petitioner officiated in the higher post for more than six years and he would have got the benefit under clause (a), had he died or retired before the order of reversion. In the circumstances, it must be held that the reversion order has entailed substantial losses to the petitioner. 17. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the order of reversion made against the petitioner tantamounts to "re­duction in rank" within the meaning of Arti­cle 311 (2) of the Constitution and therefore the impugned order of reversion is bad in law inasmuch as he was given no oppor­tunity of showing cause against it and there was violation of the principle of natural jus­tice. 18. Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the order was passed in malafide exercise of power. The allegations of malafide made in the petition do not appear to be sufficiently clear, and in view of our findings on the other points we need not deal with this point. 19. In the result, the impugned order dated 3-8-1968 is . quashed and the respon­dents are directed not to give effect to this order. The Rule is made absolute. The petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fee:] Rs. 200. 20. DUTTA, C. J.: I agree with my learned brother Pathak, J. that this writ peti­tion must be allowed with costs. I, how­ever, give my own reasons. 21. The petitioner's case has been elabo­rately stated by my learned brother. It is sufficient to say that the petitioner was con­firmed as District Engineer in the senior scale with effect from 15-1-58 in the East Indian Railway. Thereafter he was appoint­ed to officiate as Deputy Chief Engineer in die North East Frontier Railway and he joined the said post on 22-5-62. Then by an office memo dated 3-8-68 the petitioner was suddenly informed that he had been reverted to his substantive post. The order of reversion is now being challenged before; us on the following three grounds. 1). The reversion amounts to punishment therefore Article 311 of the Constitution should have been followed. But no pro­ceedings were drawn up against the peti­tioner. (2) The order of reversion was given by an authority which was not competent to do so. (3) The order is malafide. 22. 1). The reversion amounts to punishment therefore Article 311 of the Constitution should have been followed. But no pro­ceedings were drawn up against the peti­tioner. (2) The order of reversion was given by an authority which was not competent to do so. (3) The order is malafide. 22. I want to dispose of the case on the first point alone and express no opinion on the other two points. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in P. L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 86 that where a Government servant has no right to the post as where he was appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, either on pro­bation or on an officiating basis, the termina­tion of his employment does not deprive him of his right and cannot therefore by itself be a punishment. This principle was fur­ther clarified by the Supreme Court in P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SG 423 as follows:- "It should be made clear however that when a person is reverted to his substantive rank, the question of penal consequences in the matter of forfeiture of pay or loss of seniority must be considered in the context of his substantive rank and not with reference to his officiating rank from which he is re­verted, for every reversion must necessarily mean that the pay will be reduced to the pay of the substantive rank. In the case before us the appellant has not merely suf­fered a loss of pay which was inevitable on reduction in rank, but he has also suffered loss of seniority as also postponement of future chances of promotion to the senior scale. A matter of this kind has to be look­ed at from the point of view of substance rather than of form. It is indeed true, as was pointed out in Purshotam Lai Dhingra's case, 1958 SCR 828 : ( AIR 1958 SC 36 ) that the motive ope­rating on the mind of the Government may be irrelevant; but it must also be remember­ed that in a case where Government has by contract or under the rules the right to re­duce an officer in rank, Government may nevertheless choose to punish the officer by such reduction. Therefore, what is to be considered in a case of this nature is the effect of all the relevant factors present therein. Therefore, what is to be considered in a case of this nature is the effect of all the relevant factors present therein. If on a consideration of those fac­tors the conclusion is that the reduction is by way of punishment involving penal con­sequences to the officer, even though Gov­ernment has a right to pass the order of reduction, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are attracted and the Officer must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him." 23. In the present case it will appear from Annexures VI, VII and VIII to the af­fidavit in reply of the petitioner that the Railway Board made it a policy to treat any reversion of an employee as punishment after he officiated for eighteen months. The above annexures were confidential circulars issued by the Railway Board. In the confi­dential circular dated! 21-5-56 (annexure VI) it was said "any person who is permitted to continue to officiate beyond 18 months can­not in future be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure pre­scribed in the D. and A. Rules . In the confi­dential circular dated 9-6-65 (Annexure VII), a case was mentioned in which the Railway concerned did not come up to the Board for reversion of a person to his substantive post within 18 months of the promotion al­though his work was very unsatisfactory. The Board pointed out that he could not be re­verted without following the procedure pre­scribed in the Discipline, and Appeal Rules. In the circular dated 9-6-65 (Annexure VIII), the above policy was reiterated. There was another circular dated 22-11-65 (Annexure C to rejoinder on behalf 6f respondent No. 2 (Railway Board)). In that circular the above policy was allowed to be relaxed in very special circumstances. But this circular did not apply to the petitioner. The power of relaxing the policy was given to the General Manager and therefore it could apply only to persons appointed by him. The petitioner worked for more than 6 years in officiating capacity. It is true that the service of an officiating person can be dispensed with without drawal up of any proceedings. It is also true that in the order of reversion in the instant case there is not mention that the petitioner was reverted on the ground of unsatisfactory work. The petitioner worked for more than 6 years in officiating capacity. It is true that the service of an officiating person can be dispensed with without drawal up of any proceedings. It is also true that in the order of reversion in the instant case there is not mention that the petitioner was reverted on the ground of unsatisfactory work. But after the Railway Board had a declared policy not to revert a person appointed by it in an officiating capacity and allowed to work for more than 18 months, except by way of punishment, it cannot be said that the rever­sion of the petitioner was innocuous. It is an admitted fact that no proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner. In the re­sult, therefore, the petitioner must be allow­ed. Petition allowed