Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
Shadow Of Bias In Public Functions Strikes At Root Of Regulated Social Order: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Ex-Army Officer; Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Centre
|The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by a former member of the Armed Forces who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during the course of the Army operations.
While quashing the minutes of the meeting of a Search-cum-Selection Committee whereby an Ex-Army Officer was not recommended for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, the Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the Centre in view of the rank procrastination and the deliberate obstacles created by the respondent Officials in the path of the Officer. The Apex Court also held that the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a former member of the Armed Forces who was released from service on account of physical disability suffered during the course of the Army operations.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society, and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order. The law relating to mala fide exercise of power has been the subject matter of discussion in a catena of decisions of this Court. It has been consistently held that where statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, or is influenced by irrelevant considerations, or is actuated by malice in law, such exercise cannot be sustained. Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself”, it added.
The petitioner appeared in-person while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner appeared and succeeded in the Civil Services Examination. He was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service against an unreserved category post way back in the year 1990. Having earned an unblemished service record, including promotion to the high position of Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 2012, the petitioner applied for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC headed by a sitting Judge of the Apex Court. The Committee evaluated the petitioner and ranked him first on the all-India merit list. However, notwithstanding the said recommendation, the respondents did not issue a formal letter of appointment on the premise that certain adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs were available against the petitioner, which allegedly emanated from litigation between the petitioner and his estranged spouse.
The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The respondents also approached the High Court, and litigation ensued. In the interregnum, the petitioner was placed in the “Agreed List”, being a list of Gazetted Officers of suspected integrity maintained by the Department. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for the third time, wherein an interim order was granted in his favour. Despite the judicial mandate that the petitioner’s name be forwarded to the appointing authority within a period of two weeks, the respondents failed to comply, and their application seeking extension of time was rejected by the Tribunal. In the interregnum, the respondents issued a charge memorandum and placed the petitioner under suspension. While the proceedings initiated by the petitioner were still pending, the respondents, by resorting to Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, proceeded to compulsorily retire the petitioner barely three months before his superannuation. Thereafter, the list of promotions to the post of Principal Commissioner was published, by which time the petitioner stood excluded from consideration.
The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement as also the subsequent order passed by the Representation Committee declining to interfere with the said action, by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. Upon appearing before the fourth SCSC in its meeting held on September 1, 2024, the petitioner found that “the Officer” who had earlier been actively involved in matters relating to the petitioner’s protracted struggle for appointment and had faced contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner was included as a member of the Committee. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Committee. Aggrieved by the minutes of the SCSC, which were received by the petitioner in November, 2025, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that, at every stage of proceedings, the respondents 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.
“Even in the present case, the rank procrastination exhibited by the respondents in not filing a counter affidavit inspite of the specific direction given by this Court, manifests that by not instructing the counsel to file the counter affidavit, the departmental Officers desired to waste precious time and deprive the petitioner of having access to the slender window which remains available as he is approaching the age of 70 years being the outer age limit for the assignment. Even after the judgment was reserved on 15th January, 2026, there has been no attempt on behalf of the respondents to make any mention or to seek leave to file a counter affidavit so as to traverse the averments set out in the writ petition”, the order read.
The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had attributed serious bias, mala fides, and personal vendetta to the departmental officers.The Bench was convinced that the petitioner was subjected to grave injustice and rank highhandedness by the respondents by intentionally hampering and impeding his candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. Notwithstanding his promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax and imminent probability for further promotion, a trumped-up, baseless charge memorandum was issued to him, which was ultimately dropped. As per the Bench, taking shelter behind this subterfuge, the petitioner was compulsorily retired. It was noticed that the order of compulsory retirement was ultimately set aside by the Apex Court in an earlier round of litigation, recording strong observations on the high-handed and mala fide manner in which the departmental action had been undertaken.
The Bench further stated, “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.”
Thus, the Bench set aside the minutes of the meeting of the SCSC held on September 1, 2024, insofar as they related to the petitioner and whereby he was not recommended for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. “The respondent No.1-DoPT shall ensure that a fresh meeting of the SCSC is convened within a period of four weeks from today to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the above post, ensuring exclusion of “the Officer” from the said proceedings”, it ordered while imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the respondents.
Cause Title: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 101)
Appearance
Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person
Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG N.Venkataraman, Advocates V.C.bharathi, Mayank Pandey, Rajat Nair, Prakash Singh Negi, Aman Mehta, AOR Dr N. Visakamurthy