Mandatory notice for probationary discharge of a judicial member direct from the Bar made termination invalid

Service rules governing probationary discharge were read harmoniously: Rule 8(3) allowed discharge during probation without reasons, but Rule 9(2) specifically required one month's notice for a judicial member directly appointed from the Bar unless confirmed. The specific notice requirement was treated as operative for that category of direct recruit, and the absence of the prescribed notice made the discharge unsustainable. The interpretative approach also favoured the employee where doubt existed in the service rules, so the termination was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory notice condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the discharge of a judicial member directly appointed from the Bar, without one month's notice, was valid under Rule 8(3) read with Rule 9(2) of the CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987.

Analysis: Rule 8(3) permits discharge from service during probation without assigning any reason. Rule 9(2), which specifically governs a judicial member directly appointed from the Bar, requires one month's notice before termination unless the member is confirmed. The two provisions were read harmoniously as dealing with the same probationary situation, with Rule 9(2) supplying the procedural requirement for direct recruits from the Bar. On that construction, the absence of the prescribed notice made the discharge unsustainable. The interpretative approach also favoured the employee where doubt existed in the service rules.

Conclusion: The discharge order was invalid for want of the mandatory one month's notice and was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules governing probationary discharge and termination can be harmonised, the specific notice requirement applicable to a directly appointed judicial member from the Bar must be complied with, and failure to give the prescribed notice renders the termination invalid.

---