Judgment 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% backwages in O.A.No.302/2007 vide order dated 10.6.2009, this petition is filed by the South Western Railways. 2. As the facts unfurl, the respondent was engaged as a Substitute Bungalow Peon for one P.R. Suresh, Deputy Chief Engineer, Bangalore, vide appointment order dated 21.2.2005. The terms and conditions of his appointment interalia provided for termination without assigning any reason within three years on the request of sponsoring Officer. He was prevented from work on 1.7.2007 in the bungalow of Sri. P.R. Suresh. He was not paid salary fully for the period of service rendered by him. On that, he approached the Tribunal seeking for pay and allowance from 5.6.2007 to 30.6.2007. During the pendency of the petition, his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.12.2007. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of C.A.T. at Ahmedabad in O.A.No.671/2004 dated 3.9.2008 quashed the order of termination with a direction to the petitioners herein to reinstate him into service with continuity of service for the purpose of his seniority and pension along with 50% of backwages. It was further directed to pay allowances from 5.6.2007 till the date of his termination from service. It is against said order, present writ petition is filed. 3. Sri. K. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Tribunal once rejected the application i.e., O.A.No.302/2007 vide order dated 10.07.2008. On his Review Petition, relying on the judgment of the C.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench, in O.A.No.671/2004 dated 3.9.2008, allowed the petition. But the facts and circumstances of the said case has no relevance to the facts on hand. The employee was not confirmed with temporary status. Hence, he cannot claim the benefit available to an employee, whose service is regularized. His service was not satisfactory. The officer Sri. P.R. Suresh under whom he served, had complained against him. Because his engagement was on adhoc basis, he was liable to be terminated without assigning any reason within three years. Accordingly, he is now removed from service. The order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, and without jurisdiction. 4. In reply, Sri. His service was not satisfactory. The officer Sri. P.R. Suresh under whom he served, had complained against him. Because his engagement was on adhoc basis, he was liable to be terminated without assigning any reason within three years. Accordingly, he is now removed from service. The order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, and without jurisdiction. 4. In reply, Sri. Ashwathanarayana Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, by the time of his removal, he had already served two years, the employer could not have removed him from service on the ground of complaint, without holding departmental enquiry and stigmatic order could not have been passed. Sri. P.R. Suresh, under whom he served, for extraneous reasons has complained against him and put an end to his career. The period of his unauthorized absence is sanctioned as L.A.P. vide order dated 22.5.2006 and was regularized vide order dated 9.6.2006 as per Annexure-R2. That being so, his termination on the ground of unsatisfactory service is not legal. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter in the light of the Full Bench judgment of C.A.T. at Ahmedabad and the impugned order being legal cannot be interfered by way of writ jurisdiction and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, the sole point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the dismissal of the employee after two years of joining service, without holding Departmental Enquiry, is legal? 6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was taken on service vide order dated 21.1.2005 of office of the CAO/CN.BNC and his appointment was subject to the following terms and conditions: "1. His services will be liable to be terminated within 3 years without assigning any reason, if found unsatisfactory by the sponsoring officer. 2. His services will also be terminated, if the office sponsoring does not require his services of if he is transferred or retires from service or his successor will like him to continue as his substitute bungalow peon, if there is reduction in establishment due to change in policy of the Railway. 3. His can be considered for absorption as Group-D staff only after 3 years continuous service subject to availability of regular vacancies in the open line of South Western Railway. 4. 3. His can be considered for absorption as Group-D staff only after 3 years continuous service subject to availability of regular vacancies in the open line of South Western Railway. 4. After absorption as Group-D staff, further avenue will be in the category, in which he would be absorbed. 5. He will be governed by Contribution Pension Scheme-2004 and 10% from his basic salary plus dearness allowance will be recovered from his monthly salary from the date of conferment of temporary status as per extent rules on the subject, provided, it is followed by absorption in Group-D service without break. 6. His engagement is subject to verification of genuineness of the certificates submitted for proof of Education Qualification, Age & Caste". Admittedly, he has served as a Bungalow Peon under one Sri. P.R. Suresh, Dy.CE/Central/CN/BNC. A copy of the letter of the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Hubli, borne on record is an official letter on the subject of recruitment of Substitute Bungalow Peon - Policy/Instructions. It is a regulation governing the engagement of Bungalow Peon and the service condition governing their engagement. The relevant paragraphs of the letter i.e., 3, 4 and 5 deal with terms and conditions of service of Substitute Peon, grant of temporary status to Substitute Bungalow Peon and Regularization/Absorption and Seniority of Sub-Bungalow Peons. Going by this regulation, para- 3.2 reads as under: "3.2 On completion of 4 months continuous service (or as many be prescribed by General Manager) they will be afforded temporary status by which they will be entitled to all the rights and privileges as are admissible to temporary railway servants. Their service prior to the date of completion of 4 months continuous service will not, however, count for any purpose, like reckoning for retrenchment benefits, leave, increments, etc. Para 4.1 reads thus: 4.1 On completion of 4 months continuous service (or as may be prescribed by General Manager) they will be afforded temporary status by which they will be entitled to all the rights and privileges as are admissible to temporary Railway servants. Their service prior to the date of completion of 4 months continuous service will not, however, count for any purpose, like reckoning for retirement benefits, leave, increments, etc. Their service prior to the date of completion of 4 months continuous service will not, however, count for any purpose, like reckoning for retirement benefits, leave, increments, etc. Para 5.1 reads thus: 5.1 On completion of 3 years of continuous service they will become eligible for regularization against vacancies in the open line field units only taking into account their fitness in medical classification, particularly in the department of the officer concerned". 7. The Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A.No.671/2004 D.D. 03.09.2008, could not have been adopted by the Tribunal as guiding principle without distinguishing the facts between two cases. That was a case of a Bungalow Peon, who had been conferred with the status of temporary employee. In the said case, on facts, it was held that his dismissal order was stigmatic for not holding a Departmental enquiry preceding his dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal order was quashed. But here is a case where the appointment order does not confer temporary status on the employee automatically immediately after completion of four months of continuous service. Under the Policy also, conferment of temporary status after four months of service is not assured though temporary status is depicted after completion of 4 months of continuous service at Para Nos.3.2 and 4.1 of the Policy. 8. It is the submission at the Bar that, temporary status was not conferred on the employee. This is evident from condition No.5 of his appointment order that 10% of his basic salary plus dearness allowance will be recovered from his monthly salary from the date of conferment of temporary status as per extent rules. It is not the case of either of the parties that such temporary status was conferred on him, consequent thereon statutory contribution was deducted from his salary. That being so, the Tribunal could not have adopted the order passed by C.A.T., Ahmedabad, mechanically, without asserting the facts of the case. 9. The termination order communicated to him read thus: "Office Order No.139/12/2007 The services of Shri Balaji Naik, Bungalow Peon to Shri P.R. Suresh, Dy.CE/Central/CN/BNC in Scale Rs.2550-3200 are terminated with effect from 20.12.2007 in terms of the condition stipulated at Sl.No.1 of Office Order bearing No.P.23/02/2005 dated 21.02.2005 (No.P(CN)407/I/CE/O/Vol-III dated 21.02.2005. (This issues with the approval of competent authority)." 10. Definitely, it is not a stigmatic order on any charges. (This issues with the approval of competent authority)." 10. Definitely, it is not a stigmatic order on any charges. It is a termination in accordance with the terms of appointment. It does not in any way obstruct his future career. 11. The Tribunal, which had once held the termination order as valid vide order dated 10.07.2008, in the Review Petition has ordered reinstatement with continuation of service and 50% of backwages. Subsequent sanction of his unauthorized absence as leave with or without allowances will not tell upon his termination order, since it is not a dismissal on any charge of misconduct. The Tribunal misguided itself in allowing his Review Petition thereby trespassed beyond its own jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order of the C.A.T., Bangalore, dated 10.6.2009 in O.A.No.302/2007 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside. The respondent/employee is not entitled for any relief.