Probationary discharge and appointment withdrawal cannot trigger the CESTAT appearance bar under the Customs Act.

The expression "on ceasing to hold office" in Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 was construed as applying only to confirmed Members of CESTAT, not to a probationer discharged during probation, because a probationer does not acquire a lien on the post or hold office in the same sense. The withdrawal of the appointment offer was also held unsustainable, as the applicant had conveyed acceptance and a clarification request did not amount to refusal or conditional non-acceptance. The impugned communications were quashed and relief granted to the applicant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "on ceasing to hold office" in Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes discharge of a probationer Member of CESTAT. (ii) Whether withdrawal of the offer of appointment on the ground that the applicant had not conveyed unconditional acceptance was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "on ceasing to hold office" in Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes discharge of a probationer Member of CESTAT.

Analysis: The phrase was interpreted in the setting of the statutory scheme governing CESTAT Members. The Tribunal held that a probationer is under trial, does not acquire lien on the post, and cannot be treated as having an established holding of office in the same sense as a confirmed Member. The embargo in Section 129(6) was read as aimed at confirmed Members who demit office, and not at a person discharged during probation. The Tribunal also drew support from the structure of the service rules and from the distinction between confirmed office and probationary engagement.

Conclusion: The phrase "on ceasing to hold office" does not include discharge during probation. The embargo under Section 129(6) applies only to confirmed Members.

Issue (ii): Whether withdrawal of the offer of appointment on the ground that the applicant had not conveyed unconditional acceptance was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the applicant had conveyed acceptance of the appointment and that the request for clarification on the legal consequence of probationary discharge did not amount to refusal or conditional non-acceptance. Since the applicant had also expressed willingness to join at Chennai, the stated ground for withdrawal was not accepted. The Tribunal further held that the executive could not overreach the pending judicial proceedings by cancelling the offer on that basis.

Conclusion: The withdrawal and cancellation of the offer of appointment was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's challenge succeeded, the impugned communications were quashed, and the matter ended in a complete grant of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A probationer Member who has not been confirmed does not hold the office in the sense contemplated by Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore discharge during probation does not trigger the statutory bar on appearance before the Tribunal.

---