JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.-Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. Bythis common order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two appeals as they are both directed against the same judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition [C] No.98 of 2011 decided on 27th July, 2012. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.34671 of 2012 has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment on various legal grounds. By the aforesaid judgment the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the “CAT’] Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing OA No.3544 of 2009 on 9th December, 2010 whereby the respondent was discharged from service. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.27821 of 2012 has been filed by Pradip Kumar challenging the judgment of the High Court, in so far as the said judgment limits the relief granted to him only to the extent of quashing of the order passed by the CAT and the order dated 20th November, 2009, whereby he was discharged from service as Member [Judicial] in the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [“the CESTAT”].

3. We will firstly take up the Civil Appeal No………. of 2012 arising out of Special Leave Petition No.34671 of 2012, filed by Union of India, for consideration.

4. The respondent was a practising Advocate in the Calcutta High Court as well as before the CESTAT for over twenty years mainly dealing with the customs, excise and service tax matters. On 22nd April, 2006 he appeared for an interview before the Selection Committee for the post of Member [Judicial] in CESTAT. On being duly selected, he assumed charge as Member [Judicial] in the CESTAT on 22nd November, 2006. Service conditions of the Member of the CESTAT are governed by Customs, Excise and [Service Tax] Appellate Tribunal Members [Recruitment and Conditions of Service] Rules 1987 [hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”]. The controversy in the present proceedings is limited to the interpretation of Rule 8 and Rule 9[2] of the aforesaid Rules. The said Rules are as under:

“Rule 8. Probation – [1] Every person appointed as a member shall be on probation for a period of one year.

[2] The Central Government may extend the period of probation for a further period of one year at a time so that the period of probation in aggregate may not exceed three years.

[3] A member may be discharged from service at any time during the period of probation without assigning him any reason.

Rule 9. Reversion or termination of the service of members. –

[1] In case of a person appointed as a technical or a judicial member from any post under the Union or a State, unless such a person is confirmed, the Central Government may at any time revert him to his parent post without assigning any reason, after giving him one month’s notice of such reversion and in case a technical or a judicial member wishes to revert to his parent post, he shall be required to give one month’s notice to the Central Government:

Provided that in case such technical or judicial member has already superannuated according to the relevant rules of his parent post, 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 technical or judicial member wishes to resign, he shall be required to give one month’s notice to the Central Government.

[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.”

5. Under the aforesaid Rules, Member of the CESTAT is put on probation for a period of one year [Rule 8(1)]. Furthermore, under Ru