Virender Singh, C.J.

Petitioner after being terminated as substitute Bungalow Peon vide order dated 02.01.2007 (Annexure-3) moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. 250 of 2012 [R] seeking quashing of the termination order and for his reinstatement in service. He claimed parity with the case of one Prasanta Kumar Senapati whose termination order was quashed vide order dated 12.01.2010 in O.A. No. 128 of 2009 and also took additional ground that his services were terminated without any show-cause notice to him. The case of the petitioner was considered by the learned CAT viz-a-viz the case of P. K. Senapati whose termination order was quashed by the CAT and the learned CAT, on facts found the case of the petitioner entirely distinguishable. The other ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner as one finds from the impugned order of the learned CAT is that the termination order was slapped upon the petitioner in January, 2007 whereas, he moved the Tribunal after much delay inasmuch as, O.A. was filed after two years of the order passed in the case of P. K. Senapati whereas, the limitation for filing the application is one year, as one finds from Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Aggrieved of the impugned order of the learned CAT, the petitioner is before us through the medium of the instant petition which is at admission stage in which pursuant to the notice, Mr. Mahesh Tewari appears for South Eastern Railways (the respondents herein).

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records available in the writ petition.

3. If one looks at the impugned order, there appears to be no reasons spelt out in the termination order. However, the name of the petitioner was to be recorded in a Live Casual Register maintained by the Recruitment Cell of the Personnel Branch for future engagement. It is only when during the pendency of the main lis before the learned CAT, respondent-Railways filed written statement in which it was stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of unauthorized absence and unsatisfactory conduct, the petitioner urged that unauthorized absence and unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner which have been made the basis for terminating the service attract vice of stigma therefore, the respondent-Railways should have issued showcause notice to the petitioner before passing the termination order. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that may be the petitioner was on probation for three years and had completed about two years after his appointment as substitute Bungalow Peon still, serving a showcause notice and a departmental proceeding before termination are mandate in law. She thus submitted that on this fundamental flaw, the order of termination deserves to quashed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgment in “Union of India Vs. Rupesh Kumar Gupta” [W.P.(S) No. 5761 of 2003] relied upon by the learned CAT is distinguishable on facts for the reason that in the said case no reasons were assigned by the respondent authority-Union of India in the order of termination and in that factual backdrop, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the employee (respondent therein) who was on probation was not entitled to any showcause notice whereas, in the case on hand, the case of the respondents as one finds from the written statement is that the termination order is based on unauthorized absence and unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner.

5. We do not find any substance in the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and are of the view that the petitioner cannot be put to any advantageous position on the basis of orders passed in other cases. In this regard it would be apt to refer to Comprehensive Revised Instructions dated 27.08.2001 vide Annexure8 which deals with the engagement, regularization and discharge of Bungalow Peons. The relevant clause of the said Comp