Supreme Court Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost on Union Government for Vendetta-Driven Delay in ITAT Appointment

Introduction

In a scathing rebuke of administrative high-handedness, the Supreme Court of India has imposed a cost of ₹5 lakhs on the Union Government for what it termed "rank procrastination" and a "sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta" in obstructing the appointment of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj as a Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in a judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, quashed the latest rejection of Bajaj's candidature by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, particularly stemming from the inclusion of an officer previously summoned in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner. This ruling, arising from a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, underscores the judiciary's intolerance for mala fide actions that undermine principles of natural justice, especially in public appointments. Bajaj, a disabled former Army officer and Indian Revenue Service (IRS) veteran ranked All India No. 1 in 2014, has endured over a decade of delays despite repeated judicial mandates from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court itself.

The decision not only mandates a fresh selection process excluding the biased officer but also highlights systemic issues in bureaucratic compliance with court orders, potentially setting a precedent for accountability in administrative decision-making.

Case Background

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj's journey through the legal system exemplifies a protracted battle against alleged departmental persecution. Commissioned into the Indian Army in 1980, Bajaj suffered a physical disability during active operations, leading to his release. He subsequently cleared the Civil Services Examination in 1989 and joined the IRS in the 1990 batch, rising to Commissioner of Income Tax by 2012 with an unblemished record.

In 2014, Bajaj applied for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC chaired by then-Supreme Court Judge Justice T.S. Thakur. The committee ranked him first on the All India merit list. However, the Union Government withheld his appointment, citing baseless Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs linked to a resolved matrimonial dispute with his estranged spouse—a dispute that had culminated in a mutual consent divorce.

This non-appointment triggered a cascade of litigation. Bajaj approached the CAT, Lucknow Bench, in 2016 (OA No. 95/2016), which directed the government to place the IB report before a reconstituted SCSC. The SCSC, in 2018, rejected the report's impediments and reaffirmed Bajaj's top rank. The Allahabad High Court upheld this in May 2017, and the Supreme Court dismissed the government's SLP in November 2017, mandating compliance.

Despite these orders, hurdles persisted. In 2017-2018, vigilance proceedings were initiated, vigilance clearance was withheld, and Bajaj was placed on the "Agreed List" of officers with suspected integrity—a move quashed by CAT in March 2019. The government appealed but secured no stay. Contempt proceedings followed in the High Court and CAT for non-compliance, with notices issued to the CBDT Chairman for willful disobedience.

In a further escalation, Bajaj received a charge memorandum in June 2019 and was suspended in July 2019. Just three months before his superannuation in January 2020, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules on September 27, 2019. This order was challenged and ultimately quashed by the Supreme Court in March 2023 (Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022), where the bench lambasted the government's actions as punitive and mala fide, noting the abrupt shift from an "Outstanding" performance rating in July 2019 to retirement.

Post-quashing, the government dropped the charges in August 2024 but failed to appoint Bajaj. Instead, a fourth SCSC in September 2024, which included "the Officer" (a senior official previously summoned in contempt by Bajaj), rejected his candidature again. This prompted the instant writ petition filed in 2025, heard in 2026, with the government failing to file a counter-affidavit despite directions.

The core legal questions revolve around: (1) Whether the inclusion of a potentially biased officer in the SCSC violated natural justice principles, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias; (2) The Union's repeated non-compliance with judicial orders, bordering on vendetta; and (3) Remedies for such administrative procrastination in public appointments.

Arguments Presented

Bajaj, appearing in person, argued that the entire process was vitiated by institutional bias and personal vendetta from departmental officers. He highlighted his consistent top ranking by three prior SCSCs (2014, 2018, and an earlier review), contrasted with fabricated charges tied to his resolved matrimonial dispute—charges the government itself acknowledged as unestablished in a 2015 Office Memorandum. Bajaj contended that the compulsory retirement was a punitive shortcut to derail his career, quashed only after Supreme Court intervention. Crucially, he pointed to the fourth SCSC's composition, including "the Officer" who had defied the 2023 judgment and faced contempt summons in 2024 for non-compliance. This, he argued, created an irreconcilable conflict, as decisions were to be by consensus, rendering the rejection unfair and contrary to natural justice. Bajaj emphasized the uncontroverted allegations in his petition, given the government's absence, and sought reconstitution of the SCSC excluding the officer, along with costs for the decade-long persecution.

The Union of India, represented nominally but failing to appear or file a counter-affidavit on the hearing date (January 15, 2026), did not substantively contest the claims. Prior proceedings revealed the government's reliance on the IB inputs (later deemed baseless), vigilance concerns, and the sealed cover for promotions due to pending disciplinary actions. In earlier appeals, they defended the compulsory retirement as serving "public interest" under FR 56(j), claiming it was based on integrity assessments. However, the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment rejected this, noting the timing—mere months before superannuation—and the lack of logical basis for sudden doubts about Bajaj's integrity after years of exemplary service. The government's silence in the writ proceedings effectively conceded the bias allegations, with the court observing that their procrastination aimed to deprive Bajaj of even a short tenure, given his nearing age 70 (the ITAT appointment limit).

Key factual points raised by Bajaj included: the IB report's origin in a personal dispute settled via divorce; the 2015 government note discrediting bigamy allegations; and the dropped 2019 charges. Legally, he invoked Article 32 for direct enforcement of fundamental rights to fair process and equality (Article 14), arguing the actions smacked of arbitrariness.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, meticulously dissected the case through the lens of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of bias. The bench found the fourth SCSC's process "vulnerable on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice" due to "the Officer’s" participation, despite his role in prior contempt proceedings initiated by Bajaj. Citing State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1, the court reiterated that "the apprehension of bias must be reasonable i.e. which a reasonable person would be likely to entertain." It emphasized that even without proof of actual bias, a reasonable likelihood vitiates the proceedings, as "justice must manifestly be seen to be done." The ruling clarified the distinction: while administrative actions enjoy some discretion, they cannot harbor even the appearance of partiality, especially in recommendatory bodies like SCSCs where consensus influences outcomes.

The court also drew from Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992 SCC OnLine All 465), quoting that "even one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated." This precedent was relevant as it established that bias in group deliberations subtly influences others, invalidating the whole process without needing to quantify the impact. The bench distinguished this from mere administrative error, labeling the inclusion as a "gross violation" given the officer's direct involvement in defying earlier orders.

Broader principles from cases like S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) were invoked to condemn mala fide exercise of power—actions driven by "extraneous or irrelevant factors or... malicious intent." The 2023 judgment quashing the retirement (Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022) was referenced extensively, where the court had already observed the government's "high-handed and mala fide manner," including slapping charges amid contempt notices to the CBDT Chairman. Here, the bench pierced the "smoke screen" of public interest claims, finding the actions punitive and arbitrary.

Specific allegations analyzed included the matrimonial-linked IB inputs, proven baseless; the "Agreed List" placement, quashed as vindictive; and the compulsory retirement's timing, which contradicted recent "Outstanding" ratings. The court noted no new material justified the 2024 rejection, reinforcing the vendetta narrative. Legally, under Article 14, such procrastination equals denial of equal opportunity in public employment. The ruling integrates other sources by noting the decade-long delay despite CAT, High Court, and prior SC directions, as reported in legal news, emphasizing the "chequered history" of litigation.

This analysis distinguishes bias from conflict of interest: the former arises from prior adversarial roles (contempt), not just pecuniary ties, extending natural justice to administrative selections per A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, implied in the discussion.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with strong language underscoring the court's dismay:

• "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."

• "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 by various fora."

• "The inclusion of 'the Officer' as a member of the SCSC, which rejected the petitioner's candidature, has undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias in the mind of the petitioner and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice... his presence and participation in the selection process, inspite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not justified and rendered the decision-making process vulnerable."

• "In view of the rank procrastination shown by the respondents in these proceedings and the deliberate obstacles created by them in the path of the petitioner bordering to vendetta and as the allegations set out in the writ petition remain untraversed, we impose cost quantified at Rs.5 lakhs on the respondents."

• "The petitioner has been subjected to grave injustice and rank high-handedness by the respondents by intentionally hampering and impeding his candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT."

These excerpts, attributed to Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlight the judiciary's role in curbing executive overreach.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the minutes of the SCSC meeting on September 1, 2024, insofar as they rejected Bajaj's candidature. It directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to convene a fresh SCSC within four weeks, explicitly excluding "the Officer," to reconsider Bajaj's appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. The outcome must be communicated to Bajaj within two weeks thereafter. Additionally, the Union was ordered to deposit ₹5 lakhs in court within four weeks, to be paid to Bajaj, as costs for the "deliberate obstacles bordering to vendetta."

Practically, this ensures Bajaj, now nearing 70, gets a fair shot at the four-year tenure, potentially restoring his career truncated by earlier actions. The quashing of the retirement in 2023 had already reinstated benefits; this extends to appointment equity. For future cases, the ruling reinforces that apprehension of bias— even from one member—invalidates administrative selections, mandating recusal in conflicts. It may deter similar vendettas in civil services, promoting stricter compliance with judicial orders under Articles 14 and 32. Organizations like DoPT and CBDT face heightened scrutiny for including biased members in committees, possibly leading to guidelines on recusal in sensitive appointments. Broader implications include bolstering public confidence in impartial governance, as the court warned that bias "strikes at the very foundation of a well-governed society." Legal practitioners may cite this in challenging arbitrary bureaucratic delays, emphasizing the "reasonable person" test for bias.

In essence, the decision not only redresses Bajaj's grievances but serves as a cautionary tale against institutional malice, ensuring natural justice permeates public administration.