In a scathing judgment that pulls no punches, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Union Government for what it described as a "sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta." The Court has imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the Centre for a decade-long campaign of "rank procrastination" and deliberate obstruction aimed at denying a former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer his rightful appointment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, was subjected to "grave injustice" and "rank high-handedness." The Court’s decision highlights a disturbing pattern of administrative overreach where the state, instead of acting as a model employer, seemingly engaged in a "protracted persecution" of its own officer.

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj’s journey is one of resilience. A former Army officer, he was disabled during active military operations. After being released from the Army on medical grounds, he successfully cracked the Civil Services Examination and was inducted into the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in 1990.

His professional record was exemplary, leading to his promotion as Commissioner of Income Tax in 2012. In 2014, he applied for the post of Member (Accountant) at the ITAT. A Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), chaired by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, ranked him All India Number 1 for the position.

What should have been a straightforward appointment turned into a ten-year legal nightmare.

Despite his top rank, the Union Government failed to issue an appointment letter. Over the next ten years, the authorities utilized every administrative tool available to stall the process.

The Court noted that the government initially cited Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs linked to a matrimonial dispute to block him. These inputs were later found to be entirely baseless. Even when various judicial bodies—including the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court itself—passed orders in favor of Captain Bajaj, the government remained defiant.

The Bench observed:

“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 harassment didn't stop at stalling his appointment. The authorities:

Placed him on the “Agreed List” (a list of officers with suspected integrity).
Initiated multiple vigilance proceedings.
Compulsorily retired him in 2023, just months before his actual retirement age.

The Supreme Court had already quashed that compulsory retirement in 2023 with "scathing observations," yet the government still refused to appoint him to the ITAT.

In 2024, the government convened a fourth Selection Committee to reconsider his case. This committee rejected his candidacy once again. However, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, pointing out a glaring violation of the principles of natural justice.

It was revealed that one of the members of this committee was a senior officer who had previously been summoned by the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings initiated by Captain Bajaj for defying earlier court orders.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, authoring the judgment, found this inclusion "deeply problematic." The Court held that having a person who was effectively a legal opponent of the petitioner sit in judgment of his merit created a "genuine perception of bias."

The Court relied on established legal principles to set aside the committee's decision. Citing the case of State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013), the Court reiterated that the apprehension of bias must be "reasonable"—something a sensible person would likely entertain.

Furthermore, referencing Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992), the Bench emphasized a strict rule:

“Even if one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated.”

The Court remarked that the officer in question should have recused himself, and his failure to do so rendered the entire decision-making process "vulnerable on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice."

Taking a grim view of the government's conduct, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:

Monetary Costs: The Union Government is ordered to pay ₹5 lakh to Captain Bajaj. This cost was imposed for "rank procrastination" and the "deliberate obstacles" created by the department, which the court noted bordered on personal vendetta.
Reconstitution of the Committee: The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) must convene a fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) within four weeks.
Exclusion of the Biased Officer: The "officer" who faced contempt proceedings must be strictly excluded from the new committee.
Time-Bound Decision: The outcome of the new committee’s review must be communicated to Captain Bajaj within two weeks of its meeting.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to the executive that administrative power cannot be used to settle personal scores or pursue departmental vendettas. By imposing significant costs and calling out the "sordid tale" of harassment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of an individual to be treated with fairness and impartiality by the State.

For Captain Bajaj, a battle that began at the top of a merit list in 2014 finally sees a path toward justice in 2026.

Case Title: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 101
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta