Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court):--

1. The present Writ Petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for assailing the order dated 11.12.2006 in O.A. No. 1687/2005, and order dated 12.03.2008 in R.A. No. 36/2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT/Tribunal”), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the CAT held that the termination of services of the Petitioner by the Respondents was within the framework of rules and regulations prescribed.

2. At the outset, we may note that there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents after 10.09.2014. However, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. We have heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the documents on record and proceed to dispose of the petition.

3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Bungalow Khallasi, after passing a medical test, with the Respondent No. 3 – on 27.01.2000. Petitioner was conferred with temporary status vide communication dated 07.06.2000 w.e.f. 27.05.2000, after completion of 120 days of service. On 31.07.2001, the Petitioner was transferred to Chandigarh along with Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner was terminated from his services on 30.04.2002 with one months’ pay in lieu of notice.

4. The Petitioner appealed to the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (General Manager) on 17.05.2002 against his removal from service. Since the appeal was not decided, nor any action taken, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2795/2002, which was disposed of with directions to the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal dated 17.05.2002, by passing a detailed speaking order within two months.

5. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt., under the directions of Respondent No. 3, disposed of the Petitioner’s appeal by an order dated 16.01.2003. The Petitioner challenged the dismissal of the said appeal in O.A. No. 2668/2003. On 17.01.2005, while disposing of the application, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 1, General Manager, to personally look into the matter and pass appropriate orders.

6. Complying with the Tribunal’s order dated 17.01.2005, the Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 01.07.2005 by which the representation dated 17.05.2002 of the Petitioner was rejected, and he was discharged from his services as a Bungalow Khallasi.

7. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 1 filed O.A. No. 1687/2005 before the CAT. The CAT dismissed the said O.A. by the impugned order dated 11.12.2006. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Review Application, R.A. No. 36/2007, on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of order, as the finding of the CAT – that the termination was in accordance with rules, was factually incorrect. The same was also dismissed. Consequently, the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of CAT in R.A. 36/2007 and O.A. No. 1687/2005.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the Petitioner acquired temporary status, his services could not be terminated in an arbitrary manner. The Petitioner, having a temporary status, is entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short “Rules of 1968”), which require that a temporary status holder would be terminated after holding a disciplinary enquiry – if the same is by way of punishment. Further, since the termination of the services is on the ground of misbehaviour, a stigma is attached to it and therefore, an enquiry was required to be held before termination.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Lakhi Ram v. Union of India, W.P.(C.) No. 6070/2006 decided on 05.10.2007; Union of India v. Dharminder Kumar Yadav, W.P.(C) 3263/2006 decided on 08.03.2006; and Vijay Kumar v. Union of I