Why the SC Ordered Fresh Selections for an ITAT Post and Imposed Rs 5 Lakh Costs on the Centre
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to reconstitute a selection committee for an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) post, imposing Rs 5 lakh costs for "rank vendetta" against a former Army officer.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the proceedings of the Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) dated September 1, 2024, which had rejected the candidature of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj. The court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to convene a fresh meeting within four weeks to consider Bajaj’s case.
The bench termed the case a "sordid tale" of institutional bias, noting that the government had deliberately created hurdles to deny the appointment to Bajaj despite his being ranked first in the merit list by the selection committee way back in 2014.
Conflict of interest
The Court took serious objection to the inclusion of a former Revenue Secretary, referred to as "the Officer" in the judgment, in the fourth SCSC that rejected Bajaj in 2024. The Bench noted that Bajaj had previously initiated contempt proceedings against this very officer for defying court orders.
"The inclusion of 'the Officer' as a member of the SCSC... has undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias," Justice Mehta wrote in the judgment. The Court observed that the officer should have recused himself to ensure fairness. The fresh committee must exclude this officer, the order stated.
‘Cooked-up charges’
Bajaj, a former permanent commissioned officer in the Indian Army who later joined the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), has been litigating for his appointment for over a decade.
The judgment highlighted that after Bajaj was recommended for the post in 2014, the authorities withheld his appointment citing "adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs" related to a matrimonial dispute, which had already been settled. Subsequently, the department issued a charge memorandum and compulsorily retired him under Rule 56(j) in 2019, just months before his superannuation.
The compulsory retirement order was quashed by the Supreme Court in March 2023. Referring to this history, the Bench observed that the respondents had created hurdles by putting up "cooked-up charges" or failing to comply with orders passed by various forums.
Rank procrastination
Criticising the government for not filing a counter-affidavit despite specific directions, the court said this manifested a desire to "waste precious time" as Bajaj approaches the age of 70, the outer limit for the assignment.
"We are overwhelmingly convinced that the petitioner has been subjected to grave injustice and rank high-handedness by the respondents," the bench stated.
The court ordered the Union government to deposit the cost of Rs 5 lakh in the registry within four weeks, which is to be paid to Bajaj. The fresh selection decision must be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks of the SCSC meeting.
This article went live on February first, two thousand twenty six, at fifty-four minutes past ten in the morning.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
