ORDER : The preset writ petition is arising out of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in OA.No.170/00106/2016 (Madhukumar M.R., vs. Union of India and others), decided on 8.11.2016, by which the Original Application, preferred by the present petitioner against the order of termination dated 12.10.2015, has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Civilian Lower Division Clerk in the Parachute Regiment Training Station at Bengaluru, vide order dated 26.7.2013 in the pay scale of 5200-20200 + grade pay of Rs.1900/-. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years and the terms and conditions of his appointment were governed under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1965). The petitioner was terminated by the competent authority keeping in view Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and he came up before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by filing an Original Application being a Civilian employee working under the Ministry of Defence. 3. It was stated by the petitioner before the Tribunal that his Service Record during the probationary period was excellent and for the period w.e.f., 3.8.2013 to 31.3.2014 he was granted 9 points by the Reporting Officer and 8 points by the Reviewing Officer on a scale of 1-10. Similarly, for the period w.e.f., 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 he was granted 7 points by the Reporting Officer and 6 points by the Reviewing Officer. It was further brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Reporting Officer has commended his work and he was appreciated from time to time. However, for the reasons best known to the Reviewing Officer, his services had been put to an end even though he was graded outstanding and very good. 4. Before the Tribunal even the Commanding Officer was called upon to explain as to why the services of the petitioner have been put to an end inspite of the fact that he has been graded outstanding and the Commanding Officer was not able to explain as to why the services of the petitioner have been put to an end inspite of his grading being outstanding and very good. However, the Tribunal after placing the aforesaid on record aforesaid, has dismissed the Original Application. 5. However, the Tribunal after placing the aforesaid on record aforesaid, has dismissed the Original Application. 5. The order passed by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 reads as under; “When a person is appointed in government service and granted salary, he is there to aid the process of governance and if he wants to do other social service also in between that will not form part of governance and therefore the reason will arise for his superiors to be annoyed at him. The applicant produced documents wherein the Lieutenant Colonel who was commanding at that point of time had given him ‘outstanding’. We do not understand why such outstanding report should be given by a senior officer when the records prove that the applicant had been warned several times and probation has also been extended twice. Lieutenant Colonel Shri L S Singh who appeared before us was unable to explain this. But still we will assume that out of goodness in his heart and may be to protect a youngster whose career may otherwise be blemished such a report may have been given. But then we also hold that there was no reason sufficient to grant such a report in his favour. We do not know what is the work he had performed in that office but to perform any duty he must be present in the office. But after going through the attendance register and other records, his performance was deficient in the extreme. Therefore the order passed by the concerned authority is fully and totally justified. Therefore there is no merit in the OA. OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court all minute details in respect of the assessment done by the authorities. Therefore the order passed by the concerned authority is fully and totally justified. Therefore there is no merit in the OA. OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court all minute details in respect of the assessment done by the authorities. For the first year of probationary period i.e., w.e.f, 3.8.2013 to 31.3.2014, the marks awarded to him under various heads are reproduced as under: First year of the probationary period: For the period from 3.8.2013 to 31.3.2014 Attributes Reporting Officer Reviewing Officer Assessment of work output i) Accomplishment of works assigned 9 8 ii) Quality of work output including that of noting and drafting if applicable 8 8 iii) Accomplishment of tasks other than routine 8 8 Overall grading on work output Assessment of personal attributes 9 8 i) Attitude towards work 8 8 ii) Sense of responsibility 8 8 iii) Amenability to discipline 8 8 iv) Communication skills 9 8 v) Punctuality in attendance 9 8 vi) Capacity to work in time limit 9 9 vii) Inter personal relations 9 9 Overall grading on personal attributes 9 8 Assessment of functional competency i) Knowledge of rules/ regulations/ procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly 8 8 ii) Knowledge of computer applications 9 9 iii) Proficiency in typing (both speed and accuracy) 8 8 iv) Keenness to learn 9 8 Overall grading on functional competency 9 8 7. The Reporting Officer has granted him 9 points on a scale of 1-10 and has classified him as an outstanding worker. He has gone to the extent in stating that the employee/petitioner has taken a lot of efforts to learn the job and done his job with keen interest. The Reviewing Officer in respect of the same year has again given a positive report and has held that the worker in question is an excellent worker. 8. He has gone to the extent in stating that the employee/petitioner has taken a lot of efforts to learn the job and done his job with keen interest. The Reviewing Officer in respect of the same year has again given a positive report and has held that the worker in question is an excellent worker. 8. In respect of the second year of the probationary period i.e., period w.e.f., 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015, the assessment under various heads is reproduced as under; Second year of the probationary period: For the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 Attributes Reporting Officer Reviewing Officer Assessment of work output i) Accomplishment of works assigned 7 7 ii) Quality of work output including that of noting and drafting if applicable 7 6 iii) Accomplishment of tasks other than routine 7 7 Overall grading on work output 7 7 Assessment of personal attributes i) Attitude towards work 7 7 ii) Sense of responsibility 7 7 iii) Amenability to discipline 7 7 iv) Communication skills 7 7 v) Punctuality in attendance 7 7 vi) Capacity to work in time limit 7 7 vii) Inter personal relations 7 7 Overall grading on personal attributes 7 6 Assessment of functional competency i) Knowledge of rules/ regulations/ procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly 7 6 ii) Knowledge of computer applications 7 6 iii) Proficiency in typing (both speed and accuracy) 7 6 iv) Keenness to learn 7 6 Overall grading on functional competency 7 6 9. The Reporting Officer Lieutenant Colonel Prabhakaran has again given a positive remark about the employee in question. However, for the reasons best known to the Reviewing Officer, it was observed by him that the employee in question/petitioner required training for completion of task which included in his charter of duties. In spite of the aforesaid, the grading was very good. 10. The Service Record of the petitioner makes it very clear that he was working to the satisfaction of the higher authorities though some memos were certainly issued to him on 13.8.2014 and 15.12.2014. Inspite of issuance of aforesaid memos, he was graded as an excellent worker. 11. It is nobody’s case that the employee in question/petitioner was burden upon the department or his performance was not up to the mark. However, based upon some solitary incident, his services have been put to an end by order dated 12.10.2015. Inspite of issuance of aforesaid memos, he was graded as an excellent worker. 11. It is nobody’s case that the employee in question/petitioner was burden upon the department or his performance was not up to the mark. However, based upon some solitary incident, his services have been put to an end by order dated 12.10.2015. The order of termination is on record at Annexure-23 and the same is reproduced as under; “Tele 6771 Parachute Regiment Prashikshan Kender the Parachute Regiment Traning Centre JC Nagar, Bangalore 560 006 3109/19/O (MK) 12 Oct 2015 LDC Madhu Kumar QM Office, PRTC JC Nagar Bangalore 06 TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY SERVICE 1. Please refer your application dated 19 July 2015. 2. As per your application your Probation Period has been extended upto 03 Aug 2016. During this period you failed to improve your work and continued to display a lackadaisical attitude towards given tasks. A warning letter was issued to you on 03 Oct 2015 by Trg Offr (Maj P Manocha) during this extended period of probation. Due to repeated failure to improve your work and a continuous lack of interest by you in your work, I am constrained to terminate your temporary appointment of Lower Division Clerk wef 12 Oct 2015 (AN). Sd/- (SS Tinaikar) Brig Comdt.” 12. The order passed by the competent authority reflects that it is a stigmatic order and it is not based upon the actual performance as reflected from the Service Record of the petitioner. The petitioner could not have been removed in the manner and method it has been done by passing a stigmatic order based upon some solitary incident. 13. Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and Another, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520 . In the aforesaid judgment, the services of the employee therein were put to an end by observing that his work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory and in those circumstances, it was held that it is not a stigmatic order and the services were rightly put to an during probation. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under; “29. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under; “29. Before considering the facts of the case before us one further, seemingly intractable, area relating to the first test needs to be cleared viz., what language in a termination order would amount to a stigma? Generally speaking when a probationer’s appointment is terminated it means that the probationer is unfit for the job, whether by reason of misconduct or ineptitude, whatever the language used in the termination order may be. Although strictly speaking, the stigma is implicit in the termination, a simple termination is not stigmatic. A termination order which explicitly states what is implicit in every order of termination of a probationer’s appointment, is also no stigmatic. The decisions cited by the parties and noted by us earlier, also do not hold so. In order to amount to a stigma, the order must be in a language which imputes something over and above mere unsuitability for the job.” 14. In the present case, the Service Record rather reflects that the employee in question/petitioner was having an outstanding record for both the years and the Reporting Officer has appreciated his work and even the Reviewing Officer has appreciated his work in the first year and therefore, the order passed by the Commandant of the Parachute Regiment, which is not based upon the performance of the employee/petitioner, is certainly bad in law. Hence, the judgment delivered in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma (supra) does not help the respondents in any manner. 15. Reliance has also been placed by the respondents upon a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another vs. H. Omkarappa, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 623 . Heavy reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 18 to 22. Paragraphs 18 and 22 are reproduced as under; 18. It is no longer res integra that even if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic. In this connection, we make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences, (2006) 4 SCC 469 , wherein also a similar letter was issued to the concerned employee intimating him that his performance was unsatisfactory and, therefore, he is not suitable for confirmation. In this connection, we make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences, (2006) 4 SCC 469 , wherein also a similar letter was issued to the concerned employee intimating him that his performance was unsatisfactory and, therefore, he is not suitable for confirmation. We have considered the ratio in light of the facts of the said case and we are of the considered opinion that the basic facts of the said case are almost similar to the one in hand. There also, letters were issued to the concerned employee to improve his performance in the areas of his duties and that despite such communications the service was found to be unsatisfactory. In the result, a letter was issued to him pointing out that his service was found to be unsatisfactory and that he was not suitable for confirmation, and, therefore, his probation period was not extended and his service was terminated, which was challenged on the ground that the same was stigmatic for alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court negatived the said contention and upheld the order of termination. 19. x x x 20. x x x 21. x x x 22. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the above-referred decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondent was time and again informed during the probation period about his deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to improve them. Therefore, enough precautions were taken by the appellants to see that the respondent improved his performance and such an opportunity was provided to him. But such advices and opportunity were totally misplaced as the respondent considered the same as unnecessary encroachment and interference in his work and wrote back rudely in an intemperate language.” 16. It is certainly true that in case an order of termination reflects the unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be stigmatic. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s services were certainly not at all unsatisfactory as reflected from the Service Record and therefore, the order that has been passed more in a mechanical manner based upon some solitary incident deserves to be set aside. 17. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s services were certainly not at all unsatisfactory as reflected from the Service Record and therefore, the order that has been passed more in a mechanical manner based upon some solitary incident deserves to be set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated before this Court that the petitioner shall not claim back wages for the period he was out of service and therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the order of termination is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. He shall be entitled to continuity of service, notional fixation of salary and other consequential benefits except back wages. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No orders as to costs.