“Targeted Departmental Vendetta, Mala Fide Actions”: Supreme Court Sets Aside ITAT Accountant Member Selection, Orders Fresh SCSC for Ex-Army Officer [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India set aside the selection for the post of Accountant Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), holding that the case disclosed a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution” against an ex-Army officer. The court ordered that a fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) be constituted to reconsider his candidature.

The case concerns Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj who was discharged due to a disability suffered during military operations. He later joined the Indian Revenue Service and rose to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax in 2012. In 2014, he applied for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT and was ranked All India Rank 1 by an SCSC chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge. Despite this recommendation, no appointment order was issued.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and later the High Court. Both of which passed orders directing reconsideration of his case. During this period, the department initiated multiple actions against him and compulsorily retiring him under FR 56(j) just months before superannuation.

In an earlier judgment dated 3 March 2023, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan quashed the compulsory retirement order. The court observed that the action was “punitive in nature” and explained that it had been passed to “short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings”, pointing out that it did not meet the test of public interest.

After this judgment, the charge memorandum was dropped and contempt proceedings were initiated due to non-compliance with court directions. Although some consequential benefits were released, the petitioner was again asked to appear before a reconstituted SCSC in September 2024. This committee included an officer who had earlier faced contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner. In November 2025, his candidature was rejected.

In the present writ petition, the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice SandeepMehta observed that the petitioner was made to suffer due to continued departmental vendetta. The Court explained that inclusion of an officer facing contempt proceedings created a reasonable doubt of bias and violated natural justice. It was also pointed out that even one biased member can affect the entire selection.

The court also observed that the Union of India did not file any reply despite getting time, and the allegations remained unanswered. In view of this, the Supreme Court set aside the SCSC minutes dated 1 September 2024 relating to the petitioner and directed DoPT to hold a fresh meeting within four weeks, excluding the concerned officer. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh on the respondents.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates