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. 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 b