( 1 ) THE petitioner respondent challenged an order of reversion passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta on July 1, 1965 which is to the following effect:order No. Re: PR (Con) 216/62 Sri K. S. Takhar, who was appointed provisionally as P. O. Gr. I vide this office order F. 49-13/60 Estt dated 23. 8. 62 and until further order is hereby reverted to his substantive post of P. O. Gr. II with immediate effect. On reversion Sri Takhar is accommodated against vacancy of Sri S. Debnath since promoted to as P. O. Gr. I. This order, according to the petitioner, was preceded by an order dated October 26, 1962, placing him under suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated. Thereafter a criminal proceeding was started against him in 1963 on charges of being a party to a criminal conspiracy for unlawful importation of writ watches to Calcutta in evasion of law but the charges were quashed by the High Court and thereafter the order of suspension was also withdrawn in April 19, 1965. Soon thereafter the impugned order quoted above was passed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner contended that the said order was not due to abolition of the post or other administrative reasons and if all attending circumstances were taken in consideration, there could be little doubt that the reversion was by way of punishment. By promotion of an officer junior to him to the post the petitioner was holding his future chances of promotion to Grade I post was also lost. The petitioner's appeal to the higher authorities was of no avail. The petitioner contended that the order was in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice. On these allegations and contentions, the petitioner moved this court under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution and a rule nisi was issued on September 15, 1967 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the Union of India and its concerned officers to withdraw cancel the impugned order of reversion and further orders following and to forbear from giving effect to same and also why the said orders should not be quashed. ( 3 ) THE rule was opposed by the opposite parties to the rule who denied all material allegations in the petition. It was stated that if the incumbent was found unsuitable for retention in higher officiating post, he was liable to be reverted to his substantive post and such reversion was not to be considered as punishment or reduction in rank, as would appeal from Explanation (IV) under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and accordingly Article 311 (2) was not attracted. The application filed by the petitioner was thus to dismissal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed his affidavit-in-reply reiterating his stand in the petition. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge at the hearing of the rule found from official records that it was decided that the petitioner should be reverted to his substantive post of Grade II in view of his being involved in the watch smuggling case at Dum Dum. The learned Judge quoted the relevant order sheet which is to the following effect:1. SPOKEN to by Collector. The following actions have to be taken against the officers involved in watch smuggling case at Dum Dum. 3. Shri K. S. Thakhar Officer Preventing Officer Grade I and Permanent Preventive Officer Grade II should be reverted to his substantive post of Preventive Officer, Grade II. The Court was of opinion from the sequence of events that the order of reversion cannot but be by way of punishment. After the criminal case had failed, the Collector passed an order that the petitioner and others might be reverted for their involvement in watch smuggling case and thereafter the impugned order was passed. As it was by way of punishment Article 311 (2) was attracted but since its provisions were not followed, the order of reversion quoted above could not be sustained and was to be quashed. The rule was accordingly made absolute, giving liberty to the opposite parties, the Union of India and its officers, to take such proceeding against the petitioner as they would be entitled in law. ( 6 ) THIS appeal is by the Union of India and its officers challenging the propriety of the said decision. ( 7 ) MR. Noni Coomar Chakravarty appearing with Mr. ( 6 ) THIS appeal is by the Union of India and its officers challenging the propriety of the said decision. ( 7 ) MR. Noni Coomar Chakravarty appearing with Mr. Rathindra Nath Das contended that the order of reversion, on its terms, was an innocuous order involving no stigma and it could not be said accordingly that it was by way of punishment. Relying on authorities, it was contended that it was an act of impropriety on the part of the trial court to delve into the files of the department to inquire into the reasons behind the order. If the order, on the face of it, is innocuous and unexceptionable in form as in the present case, it is not liable to challenge for the reason that the order on account of some noting in file could be inferred as being by way of penalty. Further the petitioner never had any right to the post, as he was merely officiating until further order. ( 8 ) MR. Tapas Roy appearing for respondent contended on the other hand that the materials disclosed and as found by the trial court clearly indicated that the impugned order was issued by reason of the petitioner's involvement in watch smuggling case and accordingly the provision of Article 311 (2) were directly attracted. The Court was entitled, as held in various decisions of the Supreme Court, to take into consideration, which it did, the attending facts and circumstances which revealed that the order was by way of penalty and not for administrative reasons or exigencies of service. Further the order involved penal consequences as it resulted in the loss of chances of promotion of the petitioner in the substantive post by reasons of the promotion of a junior officer to the post from which the petitioner was reverted, a position not controverted in the affidavit-in-opposition or in the argument. ( 9 ) WE shall consider the respective contentions of the parties in the light of the authorities cited at the bar. As has been pointed in (1) Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 36, Article 311 makes no distinction between two classes permanent and temporary post, both of which are within its protection. It was observed: ?the use of the expression ?terminate? or ?discharge? is not conclusive. As has been pointed in (1) Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 36, Article 311 makes no distinction between two classes permanent and temporary post, both of which are within its protection. It was observed: ?the use of the expression ?terminate? or ?discharge? is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the Court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely (i) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank or (ii) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? (i. e. forfeiture of his pay or allowances, loss of his seniority in substantive rank or stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion ). If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank, and if requirements of the rules and article 311, which give protection to government servant, have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must beheld to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant. ? ( 10 ) IN the (2) State of Punjab and another v. Sukh Raj Bahadur A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1089, on a conspectus of the relevant cases, the following propositions have laid down. 1. THE services of a temporary servant or probationer can be terminated under the rules of employment, and such termination without anything more will not attract the operation of Article 311. 2. THE circumstances preceding or attending on the order of termination of the service have to be examined, the motive behind it being immaterial. 3. IF the order visits the public servant whether a probationer or temporary servant, with any evil consequences or costs an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment. 4. AN order of termination in unexceptionable form proceeded by an enquiry launched by superior authorities only to ascertain the retention of the public servant will not attract the operation of Article 311. 5. 4. AN order of termination in unexceptionable form proceeded by an enquiry launched by superior authorities only to ascertain the retention of the public servant will not attract the operation of Article 311. 5. A full scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article 311 will attract the operation of the said article. ( 11 ) IN (3) K. H. Phadsis v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 998, the Supreme Court restated the propositions in the following manner:in determining whether the reduction is or is not by way of punishment it has to be found out if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, or that in truth and reality the Government has passed the order as and by way of penalty. . . . . The order of reversion simpliciter will not amount to a reduction in rank or a punishment. . . . though the Government has right to revert a Government servant from the temporary post to a substantive post, the matter has to be viewed as on of substance and all relevant factors are to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of ?accident of service? in which a person from the substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion against his character or integrity or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment. Reversion by itself will not be a stigma. On the other hand, if there is evidence that the order reversion is not ?a pure accident of service? but an order in the nature of punishment Article 311 will be attracted. The Court found that the facts and circumstances of the case brought out in held relief that the order of reversion was in the nature of punishment. ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court again in (4) Jagadish Prosad Shastri v. State of U. P. and others, A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1224 observed as follows:an order of reversion made due to exigencies of the service in consequence of which an officer who was temporarily appointed or appointed in an officiating vacancy may not be challenged. ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court again in (4) Jagadish Prosad Shastri v. State of U. P. and others, A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1224 observed as follows:an order of reversion made due to exigencies of the service in consequence of which an officer who was temporarily appointed or appointed in an officiating vacancy may not be challenged. But the order passed maliciously or on collateral consideration or which involves penal consequences, or denied to the civil servant the guarantee of the Constitution or of the rules governing his employment, is always, open to challenge by appropriate proceedings. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for its decision after taking into consideration a letter which was admitted on the record but was wrongfully left out of account. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in the (5) State of U. P. v. Shyam Lal Sharma, A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2131 was considering a case of compulsory retirement under Article 465a of the Civil Service Regulations (1920) and it was observed:unless it is established from the order of compulsory retirement itself that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the condition of the exercise of that power or that by the order officer is losing benefits already earned, the order or retirement cannot be said to be one for dismissal or removal or in the nature of penalty or punishment. The Court directed that there should be no enquiry into Government files to discover whether any stigma could be found is the files as only the order of compulsory retirement is for consideration of the Court. ( 14 ) LASTLY in the (6) State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 423 it was reiterated that reversion of a public servant from officiating post to substantive post is not reduction in rank and will not attract provisions of Article 311. But even in such case, he cannot be reverted in a manner which will show conclusively that the intention was to punish him. The order may expressly say so or it may in various ways cast a stigma on the officer concerned in which case the order is to be taken as a punishment. But even in such case, he cannot be reverted in a manner which will show conclusively that the intention was to punish him. The order may expressly say so or it may in various ways cast a stigma on the officer concerned in which case the order is to be taken as a punishment. The order of reversion may bring upon the officer penal consequences like forfeiture of pay or allowances, or loss of seniority or postponement of future chances of promotion. In such cases the Government servant must be regarded as having been punished and his reversion to the substantive rank must be treated as a reduction in rank attracting Article 311. It was further reiterated that the court is only concerned with the question if the order entails any penal consequences and the motive behind the order is not relevant. The impugned order of reversion was however held to be in contravention of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the petition was single out for reversion out of 200 officiating incumbents for no ostensible administrative reasons or exigencies of service. ( 15 ) IN the light of the aforesaid decisions the present case has to be considered. There can be little doubt that the ground for reversion which has come to light namely involvement of the Government servant in watch smuggling case casts a serious stigma in his character and integrity which cannot but have serious repercussion in his chances of promotion even in his substantive rank. Further it has not been disputed that by the impugned order, another public servant junior to the petitioner has been placed in the higher grade which automatically reduced the chances of promotion of the petitioner in his substantive ran. There is also no case for administrative requirements or exigencies of service, abolition of the post or return of the incumbent to the officiating post. ( 16 ) THE next question requiring consideration is about the power of the Court to look into papers beyond the order impugned. The order of reversion does not say anything about the character and integrity of the petitioner but noting in the office file record the reason for reversion as the petition's involvement in watch smuggling case. Mr. ( 16 ) THE next question requiring consideration is about the power of the Court to look into papers beyond the order impugned. The order of reversion does not say anything about the character and integrity of the petitioner but noting in the office file record the reason for reversion as the petition's involvement in watch smuggling case. Mr. Chakravarty relying (5) Shyam Lal's case as the test pronouncement of the Supreme Court, contended that there should not be any enquiry into Government files to discover whether any remark amount to stigma could be found in the files when there is no stigma in the order itself. Accordingly delving into the files of the Government, as done by the trial court, in his case, was an act of improperty not warranted in law. ( 17 ) IN the case before us, the order in the order sheet is really the order which formed the basis of the impugned order several on the petitioner. In (2) Sulk Raj Bahadur's case it was laid down that the circumstances proceeding and attending on the order of termination of service have also to be examined. In (3) K. H. Phadnis's case again it has been observed that in determining whether reduction is or is not by way of penalty, it has to be found out if in truth and reality the Government has passed the order as and by way of penalty. All relevant factors are to be considered and if there is evidence that the order is ?not pure accident of service? but an order in the nature of punishment, Article 311 will be attracted. ( 18 ) IN (7) I. N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1264 followed in (5) Shyam Lal's case referred to above, it was observed that where an order requiring a Government servant to retire compulsorily contains express words from which a stigma can be inferred, the order will amount to removal within meaning of Article 311. But if the words in the order itself do not throw any stigma on the Government servant the Court cannot delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma be inferred on such research. But if the words in the order itself do not throw any stigma on the Government servant the Court cannot delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma be inferred on such research. ( 19 ) THE case before us is not a case of compulsory retirement and in regard to orders of reversion, the decisions require a consideration of the circumstances preceding or attending on the order of reversion. This is inevitable if the Court has to find out whether the order in truth and reality is not by way of punishment. While such enquiry need not extend to a consideration of the files of Government servant, it may reasonably extend to a consideration of the basic order which loads to and results in the issue of the order of reversion on the incumbent. In fact, in terms of the writ of the nature of certiorari which is for quashing the impugned order if so thought fit the Government is required to produce in Court the basis order of reversion and the order for service is only its expression drawing sustenance from the said order. There is accordingly no illegality or impropriety for the Court to look into and examine the said basic order to find out if in truth and reality the order is by way of punishment. ( 20 ) ONCE the basis order is looked into, there can no longer by any dispute that the order of reversion is not for exigency of service or for administrative reasons. It is for the alleged involvement of the petitioner in watch smuggling case which casts a stigma on the character and integrity of the public servant affecting his future chances of promotion in the substantive rank. The provisions of Article 311 are thus directly attracted. For all these reasons, this appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs in the circumstances. It is needless the mention that this order will not prevent the appellants from proceeding against the petitioner as they may be entitled in law. Let the operation of this order be stayed for six weeks as prayed for. Gupta, J. : I agree. Appeal fails and dismissed.