Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURTBar on the person to practice before CESTAT who was appointed as member of CESTAT - Appointment of Member (Judicial) of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - Mr. Ramesh Nair - whether respondent unconditionally accepted the terms of his appointment as per the letter of offer dated September 13, 2012 read with the corrigendum dated September 19, 2012 - Scope of the term ‘hold office’ used in Section 129(6) of the Act in order to determine whether a probationer can be said to be holder of office of Member CESTAT. - Tribunal concluded that a person under probation may not be said to be holding an office for the purpose of section 129(6) of the Act. It was further concluded by the Tribunal that in case of discharge of probationer from service on account of not being not found suitable for being confirmed may not be compared with cessation of office by person who has acquired a lien on it. Held that:- the bar under Section 129(6) would be applicable to a Member holding the post on substantive basis. This we say so for the reason, it is not the case of the respondent that even after demitting office as a confirmed Member (Judicial) he can practice in CESTAT. His case was on demitting office as a probationer, the bar under Section 129(6) would not be applicable. A Member demitting office while on probation does not retire whereas a Member who is confirmed, retires on attaining the age of superannuation, unless he resigns. The rules do recognize Member on probation and a Member who is confirmed as two distinct separate classes. The provision in question must be read to mean that the bar would not be applicable to a Member who demits the office while on probation. - Petition dismissed.
|