I'm not sure about the meaning of the word 'different' in the phrase 'a can be reproduced by writing the letters of b in a different order'. If the order is strictly different, then the relation is not reflexive, since if we re-arrange the order of the letters making up the word a then we cannot reproduce the same word a again.
The relation is definitely symmetric (if b can be re-arranged to form a, then a can be re-arranged to form b).
But the same problem over the interpretation of 'different' will apply to transitivity, since aRb and bRa does not imply aRa, as it will need to if the relation is to be transitive.
However, if a 'different' order of the letters can actually mean leaving the letters in the same order, then the relation is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, and is therefore an equivalence.