New Delhi, Jan 30 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday quashed a recommendation rejecting the candidature of a former Army officer who was selected as a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by a high-powered panel, describing it as a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” and “protracted persecution”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta slapped a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the Centre for not filing a response to the plea of former Army officer Pramod Bajaj, who went on to become the income-tax commissioner, and for the “rank procrastination” shown by officials of the Union government in legal proceedings.
“The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order,” the bench observed.
Significantly, the court set aside the minutes of the meeting of the Search-Cum-Selection-Committee (the fourth SCSC, headed by an apex court judge) held on September 1, 2024, in which Bajaj was not recommended for appointment as the member (accountant) at the ITAT.
“The respondent No.1 — DoPT — shall ensure that a fresh meeting of the SCSC is convened within a period of four weeks from today to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the above post, ensuring the exclusion of ‘the officer’ from the said proceedings. The outcome of the SCSC proceedings shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks thereafter,” the bench ordered.
Putting a question mark on the inclusion of “the officer” (name withheld) in the fourth SCSC, the bench said, “‘The officer’ had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner in relation to the very same ongoing tussle and in such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension as to his impartiality and independence in the process of selection of the petitioner as Member (Accountant), ITAT, is fortified.” Justice Mehta, who wrote the verdict, said it has been consistently held that where statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, or is influenced by irrelevant considerations, or is actuated by malice in law, such an exercise cannot be sustained.
“Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself,” the bench said, while refraining to comment on “the officer” who now holds a sensitive position in the government.
“Though considering the fact that ‘the officer’ now holds a sensitive position, we refrain from making any observations on his role in the entire sequence of events, leading to the present litigation. Nonetheless, we feel that 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,” it observed.
The bench said the rule against bias would certainly be attracted where the person or authority intrinsically involved in the evaluation process has a personal connection with, personal interest in, or prior involvement in the matter under consideration, or has earlier taken a position that he may be interested in sustaining.
It said in the absence of any counter-affidavit from the Centre, the averments made in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted and the court is constrained to proceed on the basis that all relevant facets of the case may not have been placed before the SCSC when Bajaj’s candidature was considered.
“There is a genuine possibility that the fact of ‘the officer’ having earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the committee. In the interest of fairness and to dispel any reasonable apprehension of bias, it would have been appropriate for ‘the officer’ to have recused from the evaluation process on his own. His failure to do so fortifies the aspersion of bias,” the court said.
It said the case discloses a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala-fide actions and protracted persecution that has compelled Bajaj to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Bajaj was inducted as a permanent commissioned officer in the Army in 1980 and during the course of Army operations, he suffered a physical disability and was released from service.
He, thereafter, passed the Civil Services Examination in 1989 and was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service. In the course of his service in the Department of Income Tax, he held various posts and was promoted to higher ranks, including to the commissioner’s post on January 12, 2012, while maintaining an unblemished service record throughout his tenure.
In 2014, Bajaj applied for appointment to the post of member (accountant) at the ITAT and was called for an interview before the SCSC chaired by former chief justice of India T S Thakur.
Upon the evaluation of all candidates, the SCSC placed the petitioner at All India Rank One. However, notwithstanding the said recommendation, the Centre did not issue a formal letter of appointment on the premise that there were certain adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs against the petitioner, allegedly emanating from litigation between him and his estranged spouse.
Since then, the matter has traversed various judicial fora, including the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the high court and the Supreme Court. PTI MNL RC
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.