Supreme Court ITAT Appointment: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj wrote the Civil Services after he was discharged from the Army following physical disabilities suffered in an operation. He joined the Indian Revenue Service TIE officer in 1990 and went on to become the Commissioner of Income Tax in 2012.
In 2014, he applied for the post of Member (Accountant) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A Search-Cum-Selection-Committee under then SC judge Justice T.S. Thakur evaluated his candidature and placed him at All India Rank One. The appointment didn’t however go through with the government citing an IB report stemming from a matrimonial report against him.
A legal battle ensued during which saw Malhotra even file a contempt of court case against former Revenue Secretary Sanjay Malhotra, who is currently Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. The contempt case was closed on August 5, 2024, after Malhotra tendered unconditional apology.
Though Bajaj won in all judicial forums, the appointment was still nor processed and he was called before a fresh SCSC on September 1, 2024. The Committee, also comprising Malhotra, rejected his candidature for the ITAT post forcing Bajaj to once again approach the Supreme Court raising doubts on the fairness of the process.
On January 30, the Supreme Court finding substance in his apprehensions, set aside the SCSC decision rejecting his name and ordered a fresh evaluation by a committee which will not have Malhotra on board.
The SC judgement by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta slammed Malhotra’s presence in the Committee.
Referring to him as “the officer”, the SC said, “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 top court said, “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.”
It said that “in the interest of fairness and to dispel any reasonable apprehension of bias, it would have been appropriate for “the Officer” to have recused from the evaluation process on his own. His failure to do so fortifies the aspersion of bias.”
Recalling the history of the litigation which Bajaj had to undertake, it said “we are overwhelmingly convinced that the petitioner has been subjected to grave injustice and rank high-handedness by the respondents (central government) by intentionally hampering and impeding his candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT.” He was even compulsorily retired on September 27, 2019, when he was only three months away from superannuating. The SC had earlier set aside the compulsory retirement.
Taking account of the distress which Bajaj had to suffer, the January 20 ruling imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the centre.
