New Delhi, Jan 30 (.) In a strong indictment of bureaucratic conduct, the Supreme Court on Friday held that a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer was meted out grave injustice, high-handedness and “institutional vendetta” by repeatedly blocking his appointment to a key judicial post despite multiple court orders in his favour.
The apex court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the central government and other respondents, describing their conduct as bordering on the “vindictive” and marked by “rank procrastination” aimed at frustrating the petitioner’s legitimate claim.
The judgement also said the department of personnel and training “shall ensure that a fresh meeting of the selection committee is convened within a period of four weeks from today to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the above post.”
The “case discloses a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution that has compelled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,” the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.
The bench set aside the decision of a government-appointed search-cum-selection committee that had rejected the candidature of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj for appointment as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and directed the Centre to convene a fresh selection process within four weeks, excluding an officer found to be in a position of conflict of interest.
Bajaj, a former officer of the Armed Forces who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during army operations, later qualified for the IRS in 1990 and reached the high post of Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 2012.
He had for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC headed by a sitting Judge of the top court which ranked him first on the all-India merit list.
However, the government withheld his appointment, citing alleged adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs linked to matrimonial disputes with his estranged wife. Bajaj challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, all of which directed the government to process his appointment.
Instead of complying, the Court noted, the department launched a series of actions against him, including withholding vigilance clearance, placing him on a secret “Agreed List” of suspect officers, initiating disciplinary proceedings and eventually compulsorily retiring him three months before his scheduled superannuation.
In a separate judgment delivered in 2023, the Supreme Court quashed Bajaj’s compulsory retirement, holding that it was punitive, arbitrary and designed to short-circuit disciplinary proceedings.
Despite this, Bajaj was again denied appointment after a fourth search committee rejected his candidature in 2024. While delivering the judgement, the bench noted “at every stage of proceedings, the respondents have deliberately created hurdles in the path of the petitioner by either putting up cooked-up charges or failing to ensure compliance with the orders passed”.
“The petitioner was continuously and repeatedly treated with vindictive approach … The Department continued to procrastinate, and created intentional hurdles in the appointment of the petitioner,” the judgement said, adding that the conduct of the authorities amounted to abuse of power and sustained harassment of a senior officer. . XC JRC .
SAibal