The Supreme Court has come down hard on the Union government for stonewalling the appointment of a former Indian Revenue Service officer to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), calling the conduct a case of calculated delay and targeted harassment stretching over ten years.
Imposing a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Centre, the Court said the petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, was subjected to “grave injustice” and relentless obstruction despite being selected for the post as early as 2014. The amount is to be paid directly to him.
A bench led by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconstitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) within four weeks. Crucially, the fresh panel must exclude an unnamed senior officer whose presence, the Court found, fatally tainted earlier proceedings.
A pattern of obstruction
Captain Bajaj, a former Army officer who was disabled during active operations and later joined the IRS, had topped the all-India merit list for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, in a selection process chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge. Yet, the appointment letter never came.
What followed, the Court noted, was a long chain of roadblocks: intelligence inputs linked to a private matrimonial dispute, vigilance proceedings, inclusion in a list of officers with “suspected integrity,” and even compulsory retirement just months before superannuation. That retirement was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023 with sharp criticism of the department’s conduct.
Still, the appointment remained out of reach.
In 2024, a fourth selection committee rejected his candidature yet again. One of its members, the Court pointed out, had earlier been summoned in contempt proceedings for failing to comply with the Court’s own orders in the petitioner’s case.
That, the bench said, crossed a line.
Bias that vitiated the process
In a strongly worded judgment authored by Justice Mehta, the Court held that the very presence of this officer on the committee created a reasonable and genuine apprehension of bias.
The Court stressed that even a single conflicted member is enough to invalidate an entire selection process. Participation by someone who had previously faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance was described as a clear violation of natural justice.
The government’s conduct, the bench remarked, read like a “sordid tale” of deliberate hurdles, cooked-up allegations, and sustained persecution aimed at denying the petitioner what he had earned on merit.
Fresh process, firm timeline
Setting aside the minutes of the SCSC meeting held in September 2024, the Court directed that a new committee be convened within four weeks, without the officer in question. The outcome must be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
Citing “rank procrastination” and actions “bordering on vendetta,” the Court imposed the ₹5 lakh cost for the unchallenged allegations and the prolonged denial of appointment.
After a decade of delays, the message from the top court was unmistakable: merit cannot be buried under bias, and persistence in defying judicial orders comes at a price.
