Targeted Vendetta & Institutional Bias vitiate Selection Process; Supreme Court grants relief to Ex-Army Officer; Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost

Supreme Court: In a writ petition unveiling “a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution”, compelling a senior civil servant and former Armed Forces officer to repeatedly knock at the doors of constitutional courts. While noting that the petitioner, despite having an unblemished service record and been ranked first by a duly constituted Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment as Member (Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was persistently denied appointment through a series of obstructive administrative actions and bias in Search-cum-Selection Committee, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the petitioner had been subjected to grave injustice, rank high-handedness, and deliberate obstruction bordering on vendetta by the respondents.

Setting aside the minutes of the impugned selection meeting, the Court directed the convening of a fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee, expressly excluding the concerned officer, and imposed ₹5,00,000/- costs on the respondents for their continued procrastination and mala fide conduct.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, the petitioner is a former Permanent Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during active military operations. After demobilisation, he qualified the Civil Services Examination and was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in the 1990 batch under the general category. Throughout his career in the Income Tax Department, he maintained an unblemished service record and was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax on 12-01-2012.

In 2014, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Member (Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). He was interviewed by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) chaired by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, which evaluated all candidates and placed the petitioner at All India Rank One. Despite this recommendation, no appointment order was issued, purportedly on the basis of adverse Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs arising out of matrimonial litigation with his estranged spouse.

Aggrieved, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the respondents to place the IB material before the SCSC. Allahabad High Court affirmed this direction, and the Supreme Court dismissed the respondents’ SLP on 15-11-2017, requiring compliance.

Thereafter, a series of adverse administrative actions followed. The petitioner’s vigilance clearance was withheld, he was issued a show-cause notice, his name was placed in the “Agreed List” of officers of doubtful integrity, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Each of these actions was successfully challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the High Court. In the midst of contempt proceedings for non-compliance with judicial orders, the petitioner was served with a charge memorandum and placed under suspension. Ultimately, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules on 27-09-2019, barely three months before superannuation.

The order of compulsory retirement was set aside by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 03-03-2023, holding the action to be punitive, arbitrary, and not in public interest. The Court recorded strong findings of high-handedness and observed that the respondents had “turned turtle” after having consistently graded the petitioner as “Outstanding” with integrity “beyond doubt”.

Despite dropping the charge memorandum in August 2024 and directions issued in contempt proceedings, the petitioner was again made to appear before a fourth reconstituted SCSC. One of its members was an officer who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance. The SCSC rejected the petitioner’s candidature in September 2024.

Invoking Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the SCSC’s decision to reject his candidature.

Moot Points

1. Whether the inclusion of an officer, who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance, in the Search-cum-Selection Committee vitiated the selection process on account of reasonable apprehension of bias?

2. Whether the repeated denial of appointment to the petitioner amounted to mala fide exercise of power, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice?

3. Whether the minutes of the SCSC meeting dated 1 September 2024 were liable to be set aside?

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioner contended that he had been subjected to a “targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution” despite repeated judicial findings in his favour. It was urged that the presence of an officer, who was personally involved in contempt proceedings relating to the petitioner’s service dispute, created a genuine and reasonable apprehension of bias, rendering the decision-making process fundamentally unfair.

The respondents, despite service of notice and opportunity, failed to file any counter affidavit. The allegations of bias, mala fides, and vindictive conduct thus remained uncontroverted.

Court’s Analysis

The Court noted that at every stage the respondents had “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 Court held that absence of any counter-affidavit was a conscious attempt to waste time and deprive the petitioner of the limited tenure available to him.

The Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. Relying upon State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, (2013) 3 SCC 1, the Court observed that even in the absence of proof of actual bias, a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient to invalidate administrative or selection proceedings. The Court held that the inclusion of an officer who had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance was “in gross violation of the principles of natural justice”.

The Court noted that, in the absence of any counter affidavit, the allegations in the writ petition remained untraversed. The Court found the conduct of the respondents, including repeated procrastination and failure to comply with binding judicial directions, to be bordering on vendetta.

Court’s Decision

Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that the petitioner had been subjected to “grave injustice and rank high-handedness” by the respondents and that the decision-making process stood vitiated by bias in Search-cum-Selection Committee. The Court passed the following directions —

1. The minutes of the SCSC meeting dated 01-09-2024, insofar as they related to the petitioner, were set aside.

2. The Department of Personnel and Training was directed to convene a fresh meeting of the Search-cum-Selection Committee within four weeks, ensuring exclusion of the concerned officer.

3. The outcome of the fresh SCSC proceedings was directed to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

4. Costs of ₹5,00,000/- were imposed on the respondents for rank procrastination and deliberate obstruction, payable to the petitioner.

[Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 127, Decided on 30-01-2026]

Also read: Setting aside administrative action on grounds of violation of natural justice principles doesn’t bar administrative authorities from proceeding afresh: SC

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/29/administrative-action-violation-natural-justice-does-not-bar-administrative-action-sc-legal-news/

*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. Solicitor General, Mr. N.Venkataraman, A.S.G., Mr. V.C.bharathi, Adv. , Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. Prakash Singh Negi, Adv., Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv., Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR