The Supreme Court of India quashed the rejection of former Army officer Pramod Bajaj’s appointment as ITAT Member, calling it a case of bias and departmental vendetta. The Court imposed a Rs 5 lakh fine on the Centre and ordered a fresh selection process, excluding the officer whose presence raised serious apprehensions of bias.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday strongly pulled up the Union government for unfairly blocking the appointment of a former Army officer to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), calling the entire episode a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” and “protracted persecution”.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed the recommendation that rejected the candidature of Pramod Bajaj, a former Army officer who later served as an Income Tax Commissioner, despite being selected by a high-powered Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC).
The Court also imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Centre for failing to file any response to Bajaj’s plea and for what it described as “rank procrastination” by government officials during the legal proceedings.
Emphasising the importance of fairness in public appointments, the Bench observed,
“The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order.”
The Court set aside the minutes of the fourth Search-Cum-Selection Committee meeting held on September 1, 2024, in which Bajaj was not recommended for appointment as Member (Accountant) of the ITAT. This committee was headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.
Issuing clear directions, the Bench ordered,
“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 the 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.”
The Supreme Court raised serious concerns over the participation of “the officer” (name withheld) in the selection committee. The Court noted that this officer had earlier faced contempt proceedings initiated by Bajaj himself during the same ongoing dispute. In such circumstances, the Bench said there was a strong and reasonable doubt about the officer’s neutrality.
Explaining this concern, the Court observed,
“‘The officer’ had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner in relation to the very same ongoing tussle and in such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension as to his impartiality and independence in the process of selection of the petitioner as Member (Accountant), ITAT, is fortified.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, who authored the judgment, reiterated the settled legal principle that misuse of power cannot be allowed to stand. He said it has been consistently held that when statutory or administrative power is exercised for reasons outside its legal purpose, or based on irrelevant factors, or driven by legal malice, such actions are unsustainable in law.
The Bench further clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny in such cases, stating,
“Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself.”
While choosing not to comment directly on the conduct of “the officer” due to his current sensitive position in government, the Court made its disapproval clear. It said,
“Though considering the fact that ‘the officer’ now holds a sensitive position, we refrain from making any observations on his role in the entire sequence of events, leading to the present litigation. Nonetheless, 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.”
The Supreme Court explained that the rule against bias becomes applicable when a person involved in the decision-making process has personal interest, prior involvement, or a history that could influence the outcome. It said such a person cannot be expected to act with complete neutrality.
The Bench also highlighted that the Centre failed to file any counter-affidavit in the case. As a result, the Court had no option but to accept the facts presented by Bajaj. It observed that the Court was constrained to proceed on the basis that all important aspects of the case may not have been placed before the selection committee.
Pointing out another serious lapse, the Court said,
“There is a genuine possibility that the fact of ‘the officer’ having earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the committee. In the interest of fairness and to dispel any reasonable apprehension of bias, it would have been appropriate for ‘the officer’ to have recused from the evaluation process on his own. His failure to do so fortifies the aspersion of bias.”
Summing up the entire episode, the Supreme Court made scathing remarks on the conduct of the authorities, stating that the case clearly reveals
“a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala-fide actions and protracted persecution”
which forced Bajaj to approach the apex court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Pramod Bajaj began his career as a permanent commissioned officer in the Indian Army in 1980. During military operations, he suffered a physical disability and was eventually released from service. Despite this setback, he went on to clear the Civil Services Examination in 1989 and joined the Indian Revenue Service.
During his tenure in the Income Tax Department, Bajaj served in several important positions and earned promotions over the years. He was elevated to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax on January 12, 2012, maintaining a completely clean and unblemished service record throughout his career.
In 2014, Bajaj applied for the post of Member (Accountant) of the ITAT and appeared for an interview before the Search-Cum-Selection Committee chaired by former Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur. After assessing all candidates, the committee ranked Bajaj as All India Rank One.
However, despite this clear recommendation, the Union government did not issue his appointment letter. The Centre cited alleged adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs, which were said to arise from personal litigation between Bajaj and his estranged spouse.
Since then, Bajaj has been forced to fight a long legal battle. The dispute travelled through multiple legal forums, including the Central Administrative Tribunal, the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court, which has now given him major relief while strongly criticising the conduct of the authorities involved.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ex-Army Officer
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
