Supreme Court Slaps Rs.5 Lakh Costs On Union For Blocking IRS Officer’s ITAT Appointment For 10 Years

Supreme Court Slaps Rs.5 Lakh Costs On Union For Blocking IRS Officer’s ITAT Appointment For 10 Years

Introduction

The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs.5 lakh on the Union Government for what it described as “rank procrastination” and a “targeted departmental vendetta” in blocking the appointment of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), despite his selection having been recommended as far back as 2014. The Court held that the petitioner had suffered grave injustice and high-handed conduct at the hands of the authorities over nearly a decade.

Factual Background

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, a former Army officer disabled during active operations and subsequently inducted into the Indian Revenue Service, was ranked All India No. 1 in 2014 by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) chaired by a sitting Supreme Court Judge for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT.

Despite the recommendation, the Union Government failed to issue an appointment letter. The delay was initially justified on the basis of Intelligence Bureau inputs linked to a matrimonial dispute, which were later found to be baseless. Over the years, the petitioner was subjected to multiple proceedings, including vigilance inquiries and placement in the “Agreed List” of officers with suspected integrity. He was compulsorily retired shortly before superannuation, an action that was later quashed by the Supreme Court in 2023 with strong observations against the department.

Even after a reconstituted SCSC in 2018 reiterated his merit position, the authorities did not appoint him. In 2024, a fourth SCSC was convened, which rejected his candidature. Notably, this Committee included a senior officer who had earlier been summoned by the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner for non-compliance with prior court orders.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Procedural Background

The writ petition was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The petitioner appeared in person. The Court examined the sequence of events, including prior litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court, and earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Court particularly scrutinised the composition of the fourth SCSC and the decision-making process that culminated in rejection of the petitioner’s candidature.

Issues

1. Whether the repeated denial of appointment to the petitioner despite earlier selection amounted to arbitrary and mala fide action.

2. Whether inclusion of an officer previously arraigned as a contemnor in the petitioner’s earlier proceedings vitiated the selection process on the ground of bias.

3. Whether the conduct of the Union Government warranted imposition of costs.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that despite being selected on merit in 2014 and again in 2018, the authorities deliberately obstructed his appointment through fabricated charges, unwarranted vigilance proceedings, and non-compliance with judicial directions. He argued that the fourth SCSC was fundamentally biased due to the participation of an officer who had previously faced contempt proceedings at his instance. The Union Government defended the decision of the SCSC and the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature.

Reasoning and Analysis

The judgment, authored by Justice Mehta, held that the inclusion of the concerned officer in the fourth SCSC created a reasonable apprehension of bias and violated principles of natural justice. The Court observed that participation of a member who had been previously arraigned as a contemnor in proceedings initiated by the petitioner rendered the selection process vulnerable.

Relying on State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013), the Court reiterated that apprehension of bias must be reasonable and that even a single disqualified member vitiates the entire process. It also cited Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992) to underscore that the presence of one biased member is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings.

The Court found the Government’s conduct to reflect deliberate obstruction and protracted persecution. It described the episode as a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” and noted that at every stage, hurdles were placed in the petitioner’s path, either through cooked-up charges or failure to comply with judicial orders.

Observing that the allegations in the writ petition remained substantially uncontroverted, the Court concluded that the fourth selection process stood vitiated and could not be sustained.

Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the recommendation for non-appointment of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj and quashed the minutes of the SCSC meeting held on 1 September 2024. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was directed to convene a fresh SCSC within four weeks, ensuring exclusion of the concerned officer from the proceedings. The outcome was directed to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

In view of the “rank procrastination” and deliberate obstacles created by the respondents, the Court imposed costs of Rs.5 lakh on the Union Government, to be deposited in the Registry within four weeks and thereafter paid to the petitioner.