Discharged CESTAT Member Gets Back His Job
MEMBER (Judicial) of the CESTAT PK Das was discharged by an order dated 20.11.2009.
He was a practicing advocate in the Calcutta High Court as well as before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for about 20 years mainly dealing with the customs, excise and service tax matters. On 22.04.2006, he appeared for an interview before the Selection Committee for the post of Member (Judicial) in CESTAT. He was selected. On 22.11.2006, he assumed charge as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT. On 21.11.2007, he completed the mandatory period of probation of one year under Rule 8(1) of the CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1987. No order extending the period of probation was issued. He served under three Presidents, namely, Justice Abichandani, Justice S.N. Jha and Justice Khandeparkar.
According to him, he never received any adverse comment from any of them during his tenure of service as a Member (Judicial). He was expecting that his probation period would come to an end and he would be confirmed in the post of Member (Judicial). But, he received an order dated 19.11.2009 extending his probation period first upto 21.11.2008 and then further upto 21.11.2009. Because of this, the petitioner came under great stress and tension, as a result of which, he tendered his resignation from the post of Member (Judicial) on 20.11.2009. On that very day, the order dated 20.11.2009 was issued, whereby the Hon'ble Member was discharged from service.
Before that, it seems there was an incident in his court and there was a complaint about alleged misbehaviour of the Departmental Representatives with the members of the Bar. The President in a note observed, "whenever any act of misbehaviour on the part of the parties or their representatives takes place in the Court, it is essentially for the Presiding officer to administer proper control and to try to defuse the tension, if any, caused on that count and not to retire immediately to the chamber. Abstaining from and abandoning the Court in such a situation and leaving it open and free for all could result in encouraging indiscipline in the Court".
The Discharged Member approached the CAT against his discharge, but the CAT dismissed his application. Against the CAT Order, he filed a writ in the Delhi High Court.
The High Court on Friday gave its judgement setting aside the order of discharge/termination.
As per Rule 9(2) of the CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1987, "(2) In case of a person appointed as a judicial member directly from the Bar, unless he is confirmed, the appointment may be terminated by the Central Government at any time without assigning any reason after giving him one month's notice of such termination and in case such judicial member wishes to resign, he shall be required to give one month's notice to the Central Government."
So, a Notice is mandatory before a Member's service can be terminated and Mr. Das was discharged without a notice. How did the Government forget such elementary requirement before discharging him?
It is exactly on this ground that the Delhi High Court set aside the discharge.
Now can Mr. Das just report to duty in CESTAT or should the Government give another order?
We bring you the Delhi High Court Order today. Please see Breaking News.
Please also see: