The Supreme Court has imposed exemplary costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Union Government for prolonged and wilful non-compliance with judicial directions in relation to the appointment of a former Indian Revenue Service officer as Member (Accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), holding that the case reflected institutional delay bordering on mala fide obstruction.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found that the executive had systematically frustrated the petitioner’s appointment despite repeated recommendations by duly constituted Search-cum-Selection Committees and binding orders passed by constitutional courts over a decade.
The Court concluded that the conduct of the authorities amounted to grave injustice, administrative high-handedness, and abuse of process, warranting the imposition of costs.
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, a former Army officer, who suffered disability during active operations and was subsequently inducted into the Indian Revenue Service. His candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, had been ranked first on an all-India basis by a Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court in 2014.
Despite the statutory framework governing tribunal appointments under the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the applicable tribunal rules and executive instructions, the Centre failed to issue an appointment order. The Court noted that this failure persisted notwithstanding repeated directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court itself.
The authorities sought to justify the delay by relying on Intelligence Bureau inputs allegedly arising out of a matrimonial dispute involving the petitioner. These inputs were subsequently found to be unfounded and legally unsustainable.
Even after a reconstituted Selection Committee reaffirmed the petitioner’s merit position in 2018, the executive continued to stall the appointment through a series of vigilance actions, including initiation of disciplinary proceedings, inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the so-called ‘Agreed List’ of officers of doubtful integrity, and ultimately his compulsory retirement shortly before superannuation.
The compulsory retirement order was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2023, with the Court recording strong disapproval of the departmental conduct and holding that the action was arbitrary, punitive in effect, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, even after this judicial reprimand, the petitioner was denied appointment.
Instead, a fourth Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted in 2024. The Court found it deeply troubling that this Committee included a senior officer who had earlier been summoned by the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings initiated at the petitioner’s instance for failure to comply with the 2023 judgment. This Committee rejected the petitioner’s candidature, leading to the present proceedings.
In a judgment authored by Justice Mehta, the Court held that the fourth selection process was vitiated by a clear and reasonable apprehension of bias, rendering it legally unsustainable.
The participation of a Committee member who had previously been arrayed as a contemnor in proceedings initiated by the same candidate was found to be fundamentally incompatible with the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias.
The Court reiterated that administrative decision-making, especially in judicial and quasi-judicial appointments, must satisfy the twin tests of procedural fairness and institutional impartiality. It relied on its earlier decision in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013), which held that even the likelihood of a reasonable apprehension of bias was sufficient to vitiate a selection process.
The Bench also drew support from Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992), where it was held that the disqualification of even a single member of a selection committee tainted the entire process.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the continued inclusion of the officer concerned undermined the credibility of the selection mechanism and violated settled doctrines of administrative law. It further observed that the allegations of vendetta and targeted persecution raised in the writ petition had remained largely uncontroverted, reinforcing the inference of mala fide conduct.
Taking note of what it described as rank procrastination and deliberate creation of obstacles over several years, the Court imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Union Government, directing that the amount be deposited with the Registry of the Supreme Court within four weeks and thereafter released to the petitioner.
The Bench set aside the recommendation for the petitioner’s non-appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, and also quashed the minutes of the Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting held on September 1, 2024.
The Department of Personnel and Training was directed to convene a fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee within four weeks, ensuring the exclusion of the officer whose presence had given rise to bias concerns. The outcome of the fresh selection process was to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
The post Supreme Court imposes Rs 5 lakh costs on Centre for prolonged defiance in ITAT appointment appeared first on India Legal.