The Supreme Court has set aside the rejection of former Army officer and IRS official Pramod Bajaj’s candidature for appointment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), calling it a case of “targeted departmental vendetta” and “protracted persecution”. The Court imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Centre for its inaction and directed a fresh selection meeting excluding a biased officer involved in earlier contempt proceedings with Bajaj.
Pramod Bajaj, a former commissioned Army officer who later joined the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in 1989, had applied for the post of Member (Accountant) in the ITAT. Bajaj held various senior roles in the Income Tax Department and was promoted to Commissioner in 2012 with an unblemished record. He was selected as the top-ranked candidate by a Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) chaired by then Chief Justice T.S. Thakur in 2014.
However, despite the top recommendation, the Central Government withheld his appointment citing adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs, which were allegedly linked to a personal dispute with his estranged spouse. This triggered prolonged litigation, with Bajaj approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, the High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court under Article 32.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta came down heavily on the conduct of the Centre, observing that the case “discloses a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala-fide actions and protracted persecution.”
The Court quashed the minutes of the SCSC meeting held on September 1, 2024 (the fourth such committee), which had rejected Bajaj’s candidature. It directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconvene a fresh selection meeting within four weeks, excluding the officer whose presence had tainted the proceedings with bias.
Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment, flagged serious procedural improprieties, observing:
“The inclusion of ‘the officer’ as a member of the SCSC… was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.”
The officer in question (name withheld) had earlier faced contempt proceedings at Bajaj’s instance in the same matter, raising a clear apprehension of bias. The Court stated:
“The rule against bias would certainly be attracted where the person or authority intrinsically involved in the evaluation process has a personal connection with… or has earlier taken a position that he may be interested in sustaining.”
“His failure to recuse from the evaluation process on his own fortifies the aspersion of bias.”
The Court stressed that in matters involving public appointments, fairness in the decision-making process is as vital as the decision itself.
“Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself.”
The apex court also pulled up the Centre for failing to file a counter-affidavit in response to Bajaj’s writ petition. It held that in the absence of a rebuttal, the petitioner’s allegations of bias and mala fides stood uncontroverted.
“We are constrained to proceed on the basis that all relevant facets of the case may not have been placed before the SCSC when Bajaj’s candidature was considered.”
The Bench imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Union Government, noting its “rank procrastination” and lack of diligence throughout the proceedings.
- The DoPT was directed to convene a fresh SCSC meeting within four weeks.
- The officer previously involved must be excluded.
- The outcome must be communicated to Bajaj within two weeks thereafter.
The Court refrained from making personal remarks on the unnamed officer, noting that he currently holds a sensitive government position, but it underscored the serious breach of natural justice and administrative fairness that had occurred in the selection process.
