A Decade of Targeted Persecution Cannot Be Cloaked as Procedure: Supreme Court Slams Department for Systematic Denial of ITAT Appointment

“Departmental actions reflected mala fides, arbitrariness, and institutional vendetta”—  In a landmark judgment Supreme Court exposed what it termed a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” stretching over more than a decade. The Court came down heavily on the Union of India for obstructing the petitioner’s appointment as Member (Accountant) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), describing the bureaucratic resistance as “calculated, mala fide, and bordering on persecution.”

A two-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, quashing the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) minutes of September 1, 2024, and directing a fresh selection without the participation of a senior officer whose involvement tainted the process. But beyond the issue of bias, the Court made strong and unprecedented observations on the abuse of service law mechanisms and administrative process to deny a candidate his rightful appointment.

“This is not inadvertent delay — this is systemic obstruction”: SC exposes misuse of FR 56(j), vigilance, and sealed cover procedures

The Court was categorical in holding that the repeated denial of appointment to the petitioner — who ranked All India Rank One in the original 2014 SCSC for appointment to ITAT — was not merely a case of bureaucratic oversight or administrative discretion.

“The petitioner has been subjected to grave injustice and rank highhandedness by the respondents by intentionally hampering and impeding his candidature... taking shelter behind trumped-up charges and procedural subterfuge,” the Court observed [Para 40].

The facts revealed that the petitioner, a former Army officer who joined the IRS in 1990 and rose to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax, was denied appointment multiple times by invoking vigilance clearance, disciplinary charges, and ultimately compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j) — all of which were subsequently quashed or dropped after judicial scrutiny.

In particular, the Court had earlier, in its judgment dated 3rd March 2023, struck down the petitioner’s compulsory retirement, holding it to be “punitive in nature” and passed to “short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings”, stating:

“There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents... [who] had till as late as in July, 2019 continued to grade the appellant as ‘Outstanding’... but in less than three months... resorted to FR 56(j)... This Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen.”

In the present case, the Bench revisited that finding to highlight the consistent mala fide intent underlying departmental conduct:

“Even after this Court’s express directions in 2023, the petitioner’s appointment was withheld again under the pretext of a fresh SCSC process where bias crept in... Such conduct borders on institutional vendetta,” the Court held [Paras 36–39].

Procrastination as a tool of harassment: Government slammed for not filing reply, despite SC warnings

Not only did the respondents fail to comply with repeated judicial directives — including those of the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court — but they also failed to even file a counter affidavit in the present Article 32 proceedings.

The Court noted with sharp disapproval:

“The rank procrastination exhibited by the respondents in not filing a counter affidavit... manifests that departmental officers desired to waste precious time and deprive the petitioner of access to the slender window remaining,” [Para 36].

The petitioner, now nearing 70 years of age — the upper limit for ITAT appointment — had previously obtained judgments directing his consideration “within two weeks”, as far back as 2017 and 2019. The Court recalled these directions and condemned the conduct of the respondents as an egregious breach of judicial orders, remarking:

“This is not merely a service matter — this is a case of deliberate subversion of institutional integrity and constitutional duty.”

Mala fide use of sealed cover and disciplinary processes to block promotion and appointment

The Court also revisited how the sealed cover procedure was used to defer the petitioner’s promotion to Principal Commissioner — a position he was later excluded from after being compulsorily retired just months before superannuation.

Even though earlier tribunals and High Courts held that the disciplinary charges were baseless — and even when the charges were ultimately dropped by the CBDT — the Department took no steps to correct the record or consider the petitioner for his rightful post.

Referring to the judgment in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated:

“Where administrative power is exercised for extraneous purposes or driven by malicious intent, it must be struck down. The present case is a textbook illustration of mala fide action cloaked in procedural legitimacy.” [Para 44]

Costs Imposed – SC Recognises Longstanding Harassment

The Court, taking note of the relentless pursuit and litigation initiated by the petitioner for over a decade, imposed ₹5 lakh costs on the respondents, to be paid directly to the petitioner:

“In view of the rank procrastination shown by the respondents... bordering to vendetta... we impose cost quantified at ₹5 lakhs.” [Para 47]

A Landmark Judgment on Abuse of Administrative Power

This ruling will likely serve as a precedent in service law and administrative jurisprudence, especially in cases involving mala fide action masked as routine discretion. The judgment exposes how procedural tools such as vigilance clearance, sealed cover, and compulsory retirement — often used under the pretext of “public interest” — can be weaponised to delay or deny justice.

In standing firmly for institutional integrity, the Supreme Court has sent an unmistakable message: malice dressed as procedure will not be tolerated.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2026