'Targeted Vendetta' : Supreme Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Union Govt For Blocking IRS Official's ITAT Appointment For A Decade

The Supreme Court on Friday imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Union Government for what it described as "rank procrastination" and deliberate obstruction in the appointment of a former Indian Revenue Service officer as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), despite his selection being recommended as far back as 2014.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, was subjected to “grave injustice, rank high-handedness ”, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconstitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) within four weeks after excluding an "officer" who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner's instance.

The bench expressed dismay over government's “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution” to deny appointment to the petitioner, noting that “at every stage of proceedings, the respondents have deliberately created hurdles in the path of the petitioner by either putting up cooked-up charges or failing to ensure compliance with the orders passed by various fora.”

Background

Captain Bajaj, a former Army officer disabled during active operations and later inducted into the Indian Revenue Service, was ranked All India No. 1 by an SCSC chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge in 2014 for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT.

Despite repeated judicial directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court itself, the Union failed to issue an appointment letter, citing Intelligence Bureau inputs linked to a matrimonial dispute, which were later found to be baseless.

The Court noted that even after a reconstituted SCSC reiterated his merit position in 2018, the authorities continued to delay the appointment, initiating vigilance proceedings, placing him in the “Agreed List”(list of officers with suspected integrity), and ultimately compulsorily retiring him just months before superannuation. The compulsory retirement was later quashed by the Supreme Court in 2023 with scathing observations on the conduct of the department.

Yet, he was not appointed. Instead, in 2024, he faced a fourth selection committee that included a senior officer who had been summoned for contempt by the Supreme Court for defying the 2023 order. This committee also rejected his candidature, leading to the instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

 The Court found it deeply problematic that the same "officer" who had been summoned by the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings for non-compliance of earlier orders was included as a member of this Committee. The Court did not name the person, and only described his as "officer" in the judgment.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta held that the fourth selection process was vitiated by a reasonable apprehension of bias. One of the committee members had earlier been a respondent in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner yet chose to participate in the selection.

“…we feel that the inclusion of “the Officer” as a member of the SCSC, which rejected the petitioner's candidature, has undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias in the mind of the petitioner and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice…his presence and participation in the selection process, inspite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not justified and rendered the decision-making process vulnerable on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.”, the court observed, directing removal of "the officer" in the freshly constituted committee for considering the petitioner's candidature.

The Court referred to its ruling in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013), where it was held that “the apprehension of bias must be reasonable i.e. which a reasonable person would be likely to entertain… In case such apprehension exists the trial/judgment/order, etc. would stand vitiated for want of impartiality.” It further quoted from Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992) to state that “even one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated.”

“In view of the rank procrastination shown by the respondents in these proceedings and the deliberate obstacles created by them in the path of the petitioner bordering to vendetta and as the allegations set out in the writ petition remain untraversed, we impose cost quantified at Rs.5 lakhs on the respondents. The cost shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today and the same shall thereafter be paid to the petitioner.”, the court directed.

Resultantly, the recommendation for his non-appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, was set aside. Setting aside the minutes of the SCSC meeting held on September 1, 2024, the Court directed DoPT to convene a fresh SCSC within four weeks, ensuring exclusion of the officer concerned, and to communicate the outcome to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

"The respondent No.1-DoPT shall ensure that a fresh meeting of the SCSC is convened within a period of four weeks from today to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the above post, ensuring exclusion of “the Officer” from the said proceedings. The outcome of the SCSC proceedings shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks thereafter."

Cause Title: CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta Ld, Solicitor General (Not Present) Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G.(Not Present) Mr. V.C.Bharathi, Adv.(Not Present) Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.(Not Present) Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.(Not Present) Mr. Prakash Singh Negi, Adv.(Not Present) Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.(Not Present) Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR(Not Present)