In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Income Tax Department and a former Revenue Secretary, currently the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for their prolonged harassment of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer. The court has imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the concerned authorities, expressing grave disapproval of their actions.
The case revolves around Pramod Bajaj, who, after serving as an officer in the Army, joined the IRS in 1990 and rose to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax in January 2012. Despite his career progression, Bajaj faced a series of obstacles that the Supreme Court has now deemed a targeted "institutional vendetta".
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that despite Bajaj's promotion and prospects for further advancement, a fabricated memorandum was issued against him, which was eventually dropped. However, authorities used this as a pretext to compulsorily retire him. The Supreme Court had previously overturned this retirement order in March 2023, strongly condemning the departmental action as high-handed and malicious.
The court noted a pattern of obstruction, with the department repeatedly creating hurdles in Bajaj's path through "cooked-up charges" and non-compliance with court orders. It stated that Bajaj was continuously subjected to a vindictive approach, with the department intentionally протоколиating and creating obstacles to his appointment. The Supreme Court specifically quashed the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) minutes of September 1, 2024, and directed a fresh selection process, excluding a senior officer whose involvement had tainted the previous proceedings.
Referring to the former Revenue Secretary, now the RBI Governor, as "the Officer," the bench refrained from commenting on his specific role, acknowledging his current sensitive position. However, the court's overall observations make clear its displeasure with the systematic harassment faced by Bajaj. The actions against Bajaj included withholding vigilance clearance, placing him on a secret list of suspect officers, initiating disciplinary proceedings, and ultimately, his compulsory retirement just months before his expected superannuation.
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that the denial of Bajaj's appointment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), despite ranking first in the 2014 selection process, was not a mere oversight. The court found that Bajaj had been subjected to grave injustice, with authorities using trumped-up charges and procedural subterfuge to impede his candidature. The court also noted that the sealed cover procedure was improperly used to defer Bajaj's promotion to Principal Commissioner.
The Supreme Court has directed that a fresh meeting of the selection committee be convened within four weeks to reconsider Bajaj's candidature for the judicial post. The court's decision underscores its commitment to upholding justice and preventing the misuse of administrative processes to target and harass government officials. The ruling serves as a stern warning against "malice dressed as procedure" and is expected to set a precedent in service law and administrative jurisprudence.
