Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection Panel After Finding Reasonable Apprehension of Bias in ITAT Appointment

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj’s petition under Article 32 challenging the minutes of a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) that rejected his candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petition alleged mala fide departmental conduct, repeated procedural delays and the inclusion in the fourth SCSC of an officer who had earlier been arraigned in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the SCSC minutes dated 1 September 2024 insofar as they related to the petitioner. It directed the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) to convene a fresh SCSC within four weeks to consider the petitioner’s candidature, ensuring exclusion of the officer referred to in the judgment, and ordered that the outcome be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The Court imposed costs of Rs.5 lakhs on the respondents for the deliberate procrastination and procedural lapses. The Court recorded serious findings against the respondents’ conduct, describing the matter as a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Though considering the fact that ‘the Officer’ now holds a sensitive position, we refrain from making any observations on his role in the entire sequence of events leading to the present litigation. Nonetheless, we feel that the inclusion of ‘the Officer’ as a member of the SCSC, which rejected the petitioner’s candidature, has undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias in the mind of the petitioner and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. ‘The Officer’ had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner in relation to the very same ongoing tussle, and in such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension as to his impartiality and independence in the process of selection of the petitioner as Member (Accountant), ITAT, is fortified. True it is, that ‘the Officer’ was only one among the members of the Committee; however, his presence and participation in the selection process, inspite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not justified and rendered the decision-making process vulnerable on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.”

Background The petitioner was an Army veteran who joined the Indian Revenue Service (1990 batch) and rose to Commissioner of Income Tax. He applied in 2014 for Member (Accountant), ITAT and was placed at All India Rank One by the initial SCSC but was not appointed purportedly due to Intelligence Bureau inputs. The petitioner secured a series of favourable orders: the Central Administrative Tribunal directed reconsideration (2017), the Allahabad High Court affirmed that direction, and this Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition in November 2017 directing compliance. Thereafter, the department issued a charge memorandum (June 2019) and compulsorily retired the petitioner in September 2019; that order was quashed by this Court on 3 March 2023, which recorded that the compulsory retirement was “punitive in nature” and reflected high-handed departmental conduct.

The petitioner pursued contempt proceedings when the respondents failed to implement judicial directions; the Revenue Secretary tendered an unconditional apology and this Court ordered release of consequential benefits in August 2024. The CBDT dropped the charge memorandum, but the DoPT directed a fresh reference to the SCSC. When the petitioner appeared before the fourth SCSC on 1 September 2024, he found the same officer who had been involved in earlier actions and who had faced contempt notice included as a member; the Committee later did not recommend him. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in December 2025. The respondents did not file a counter affidavit or appear at the final hearing on 15 January 2026; the Court noted “rank procrastination” and deliberate delay by the respondents in its reasoning.

Relying on established authorities on the doctrine against bias (including State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta and precedents on reasonable apprehension of bias), the Court held that the presence and participation of the said officer created a bona fide apprehension of bias, vitiating the selection process. The Court set aside the relevant minutes, ordered a fresh SCSC without the officer, mandated communication of the outcome within specified timelines and directed payment of costs of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1180 of 2025; 2026 INSC 101 Case Title: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (in person) For the Respondent(s): Union of India (respondents sought time and did not file a counter affidavit; no counsel appeared at final hearing)