PRADIP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS INSC 805

NAME OF THE CASE Pradip Kumar v Union of India

FACTS Pradip Kumar is a practicing advocate in customs, excise, and service tax matters, was confirmed as Member (Judicial), CESTAT on November 22, 2006. It was made with condition to probation period under the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Members Recruitment & Conditions of service Rules 1987. Therefore, the Union of India discharged him from service on 20 November 2009, before he could complete his probation without any reasons, as allowed under Rule 8(3) of the said Rules. Kumar cud this discharge before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which threw out his application. He initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court and the CAT order was set aside and his discharge was quashed but no direction for his reinstatement to organize or for payment of back wages was passed. Kumar and Union of India both filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE In what extent was the removal of Pradip Kumar from the post of Member (Judicial) in CESTAT during probationary period lawful by the provisions and the Service Rules in force?

HOLDING No, in discharge it found them to be arbitrary, punitive in nature, and a colourable exercise of power which infringes Article 14 of Constitution of India.

RATIONALE The Supreme Court made note of the provisions of Rule 8(3) to the effect that the power to discharge during probation does not require specific reasons save that the power to exercise is vested to avoid the enforcements of other provisions that may bar discharge during probation in a punitive manner. That Kumar was discharged before the completion of his probation but just when the organisation was about to determine whether to continue with his probation affirmed that the action was not bona fide since there was no adverse material against him. According to the Court, the discharge order was stigmatic and punitive and thereby violated Article 14 thereby denying Kumar his right to equality. For this reason, the Court ordered Kumar’s reinstatement to the post with cumulative back wages as well as all consequential benefits.