Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj against the Union of India and another respondent -- The petitioner, a disabled Army veteran turned IRS officer, was ranked first by the SCSC for appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT in 2014 -- The respondents withheld his appointment citing IB reports from matrimonial disputes -- After prolonged litigation where courts directed reconsideration and the SCSC reaffirmed his merit, the respondents initiated vigilance actions, placed him in the 'Agreed List', and compulsorily retired him -- The Court found these actions were mala fide and amounted to departmental vendetta -- It quashed the compulsory retirement, directed the petitioner's appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT with back wages from 2014, and awarded costs of ₹5 lakhs
Headnote
The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India -- The petitioner, a former Army officer released due to disability, joined the Indian Revenue Service in 1990 and rose to Commissioner of Income Tax -- In 2014, he applied for Member (Accountant) ITAT and was ranked first by the SCSC chaired by a Supreme Court Judge -- The respondents withheld appointment citing IB inputs from matrimonial litigation -- The Tribunal and High Court directed reconsideration, which the SCSC reiterated the petitioner's merit -- Subsequently, the respondents initiated vigilance proceedings, placed the petitioner in the 'Agreed List', and compulsorily retired him -- The Court found these actions were mala fide and amounted to targeted persecution -- Held that the SCSC recommendations must be respected and the compulsory retirement was illegal -- Directed the petitioner's appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT with back wages and consequential benefits
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the petitioner's non-appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT despite being ranked first by the SCSC and subsequent compulsory retirement were motivated by mala fide actions and departmental vendetta
Final Decision
Allowed the writ petition -- Quashed the compulsory retirement order -- Directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Member (Accountant) ITAT within four weeks -- Ordered payment of back wages and consequential benefits from 2014 -- Awarded costs of ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner
Law Points
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India -- Writ jurisdiction -- Mala fide actions -- Departmental vendetta -- Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) recommendations -- Compulsory retirement -- Natural justice -- Abuse of power
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (01) 90
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1180 of 2025
VIKRAM NATH J. , SANDEEP MEHTA J.
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj
Union of India and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging non-appointment to ITAT post and subsequent compulsory retirement
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeking writ of certiorari, mandamus for reconstitution of SCSC and appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT
Filing Reason
Targeted departmental vendetta, mala fide actions, and protracted persecution after being ranked first by SCSC for ITAT post
Previous Decisions
Tribunal allowed OA No. 95/2016 directing reconsideration -- High Court dismissed writ petition No. 8648/2017 -- Supreme Court dismissed SLP(C) No. 22596/2017 -- SCSC reiterated petitioner's merit in 2018 -- Tribunal granted interim relief in vigilance matters -- Petitioner placed in 'Agreed List' and compulsorily retired
Issues
Whether the respondents' actions in withholding appointment and initiating proceedings against the petitioner were mala fide and amounted to departmental vendetta
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Member (Accountant) ITAT based on SCSC recommendations
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's argument that he was victim of targeted persecution after being ranked first by SCSC
Respondents' argument that IB inputs from matrimonial litigation justified withholding appointment
Ratio Decidendi
SCSC recommendations chaired by a Supreme Court Judge must be respected and cannot be arbitrarily overridden -- Administrative actions motivated by mala fide and departmental vendetta are illegal -- Compulsory retirement based on fabricated charges violates natural justice
Judgment Excerpts
The present case discloses a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution
The Committee evaluated the petitioner and ranked him first on the all-India merit list
The respondents did not issue a formal letter of appointment on the premise that certain adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs were available
On 11th April, 2018, the petitioner was placed in the 'Agreed List'
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in placing his name in the 'Agreed List', the petitioner approached the Tribunal
Procedural History
2014: Petitioner ranked first by SCSC for ITAT post -- 2016: Filed OA No. 95/2016 before Tribunal -- 2017: Tribunal allowed OA, High Court dismissed writ petition, Supreme Court dismissed SLP -- 2018: SCSC reiterated merit, vigilance proceedings initiated, petitioner placed in 'Agreed List' -- 2025: Filed writ petition under Article 32 before Supreme Court
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 32
