Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. We find a contradiction in the impugned judgment dated August 27, 2013. On the one hand the learned Single Judge has held that order dated September 21, 2012, terminating appellant’s service during probation is non-stigmatic and on the other hand a direction has been issued in paragraph 9 that the respondent would issue a fresh termination order which should be a simplicitor termination order. The two cannot obviously stand.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant gives up the point concerning appellant’s deemed confirmation. The reason is that the view taken by the learned Single Judge on said aspect of the matter is correct.

3. The surviving issue is : ‘Whether order dated September 21, 2012 is non-stigmatic’. By the order the service of the appellant was terminated while he was still under probation.

4. The order was preceded by a show cause notice dated June 05, 2012 which reads as under:-

“You are engaged as Assistant Supervisor (SI), Tourism in IRCTC/NZ and presently reporting to Manager/Maharajas’ Express. The record reveals that you absented yourself unauthorizedly without any sufficient cause w.e.f. 09.05.2012. You even failed to respond, in spi