The Supreme Court imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Union Government after finding that the prolonged delay and obstruction in appointing a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer as a Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) amounted to “rank procrastination” and “targeted departmental vendetta.” The case stemmed from a long-running dispute in which the officer, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, a former Army officer disabled during active service and later an IRS official, had been ranked first on the all-India merit list for the ITAT post by a Search-cum-Selection Committee as early as 2014 but was never appointed. Despite multiple judicial directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court itself, the Union Government repeatedly delayed the appointment process, including citing adverse intelligence inputs later found baseless, initiating vigilance proceedings, placing him on a list of officers with suspected integrity, and even compulsorily retiring him shortly before superannuation. The Supreme Court had previously quashed the compulsory retirement order as punitive and arbitrary.
When a fourth selection committee met in 2024 and again rejected Bajaj’s candidature, the Supreme Court took up his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, found that the conduct of the authorities reflected mala fide actions and deliberate hurdles that extended over years, describing the saga as a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” and “protracted persecution.” The court was particularly critical of the inclusion of a committee member, referred to only as “the officer,” who had previously faced contempt proceedings initiated by Bajaj due to government non-compliance with earlier orders. The Supreme Court held that this created a reasonable apprehension of bias and violated principles of natural justice, and that a selection process cannot stand where even one member suffers from such disqualification.
The Supreme Court set aside the minutes of the 2024 selection committee meeting insofar as they related to Bajaj’s candidature and directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconstitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee within four weeks, ensuring the exclusion of the biased member. The DoPT was further directed to communicate the outcome of the fresh selection within two weeks thereafter. In imposing the ₹5 lakh cost on the Union Government, the court noted the government’s “rank procrastination” and failure to file a counter-affidavit, which left the petitioner’s allegations of bias and mala fide conduct uncontroverted in the record. The cost was ordered to be deposited in the Supreme Court registry within four weeks and subsequently paid to Bajaj. The Supreme Court’s judgment underscored that administrative fairness, impartiality, and adherence to the rule of law are fundamental in public appointment processes and that systematic obstruction over years, bordering on vendetta, cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.