Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition(Civil) No(s). 1180 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026
The legal document details a complex and protracted series of events involving the petitioner, a former Indian Army officer and civil servant, who has faced multiple challenges and alleged injustices in his efforts to secure appointment as a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issues revolve around allegations of bias, mala fide conduct, and procedural irregularities in the appointment process, including the participation of certain committee members with prior contentious relations with the petitioner.
Key points include:
The petitioner successfully ranked first in the evaluation process conducted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) for the ITAT appointment, but was not appointed due to purported adverse intelligence inputs and procedural delays (!) (!) .
There were multiple litigations, including orders from administrative tribunals and courts, which mandated the respondents to act in accordance with merit-based recommendations and to consider the petitioner’s case fairly (!) (!) .
The petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings, including a charge memorandum and suspension, which were ultimately dropped, but he was subjected to compulsory retirement shortly before his superannuation, an action later found to be unjustified by the courts (!) (!) (!) .
Despite court orders and judgments favoring the petitioner, the respondents delayed and obstructed the appointment process, including not implementing court judgments and creating procedural hurdles, which resulted in contempt proceedings and costs being imposed on the respondents (!) (!) (!) .
A significant concern raised was the participation of a committee member ("the Officer") who had prior contempt proceedings against him initiated by the petitioner. The presence of this individual on the selection committee was deemed to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, undermining the fairness of the process (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, particularly the requirement that decision-makers act fairly and avoid situations that could give rise to a perception of bias. The Court found that the inclusion of the biased member compromised the integrity of the selection process and ordered a fresh SCSC to be convened excluding that member (!) .
The Court also observed that the respondents’ conduct exhibited deliberate procrastination and bad faith, creating obstacles to the petitioner’s appointment, which justified the imposition of costs (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the previous decision not to recommend the petitioner and directing that a new committee be convened within four weeks, ensuring the exclusion of the biased member, and that the outcome be communicated within two weeks thereafter (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to principles of natural justice in public appointments, condemning procedural irregularities and bias that undermine public confidence in the process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. targeted departmental vendetta against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. tribunal's intervention in the appointment process. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural justice violations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. final proceedings on compulsory retirement. (Para 40 , 48) |
| 5. bias in administrative decision-making process. (Para 41 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The present 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.
3. The petitioner before us is a former member of the Armed Forces who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during the course of the Army operations.
4. Pursuant to his release, the petitioner appeared and succeeded in the Civil Services Examination. He was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service against an unreserved category post way back in the year 1990. Having earned an unblemished service record, including promotion to the high position of Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 2012, the petitioner applied for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC headed by an Hon’ble sitting Judge of this Court. The Committee evaluated the petitioner and ranked him first on the all-India merit list. It appears that this success of the petitioner did not go down well with the Officers of the respondents. The chain of events which transpired as a sequel have led to the filing of the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
5. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction or declaration after summoning the complete file, so that justice is done to the Petitioner, who has been recommended 11 years ago by the SCSC (2013 Notification) and faced 3 SCSCs subsequently, in accordance with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 15.11.2017 in S.L.P. Civil No. 22596/2017”
BACKGROUND
6. The present matter has a chequered history as it has traversed multiple rounds of litigation, which renders it necessary to set out the factual background in some detail. Accordingly, the facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are noted hereinbelow.
A. Service Background and Initial Selection Process
7. The petitioner was inducted as a Permanent Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army in the year 1980. During the course of Army operations, he suffered a physical disability and was, consequently, demobilised and released from service on account of disability attributable to active military operations. Thereafter, he qualified the Civil Services Examination in the year 1989 and was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service in the general category, being allocated to the 1990 batch. In the course of his service in the Department of Income Tax, he held various posts and was promoted to higher ranks, including promotion to the post of Commissioner on 12th January, 2012, while maintaining an unblemished service record throughout his tenure.
8. In the year 2014, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Member (Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1[For short, ‘ITAT’.], and was called for an interview before the Search-cum-Selection Committee2[For short,’SCSC’.] chaired by Hon’ble Shri Justice T.S. Thakur (as he then was), along with the Ad
The inclusion of a biased committee member in a selection process violates natural justice, resulting in a decision being set aside due to reasonable apprehensions of bias.
The doctrine of bias and the principle of natural justice were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent selection process free from nepotism and favoritism.
Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision - There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule of universal application for allocating the marks for viva voce vis-a-vis marks for written examinati....
The selection process for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was invalidated due to bias from selection committee members in familial relationships, violating natural justice principles.
Doctrine “no man can be a Judge in his own cause” can be applied only to cases where person concerned has a personal interest or has himself already done some act or taken a decision in the matter co....
The principle of audi alteram partem safeguards against arbitrary decisions by ensuring every affected party receives a fair hearing, thus rendering decisions void if this standard is not upheld.
Point of Law : Mere grant of less marks to the petitioner by the Committee is no ground to hold that Members of the Selection Committee were biased against the petitioner. Leaving everything aside, t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
