Facts: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, a former member of the Armed Forces released due to disability, successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination and became Commissioner of Income Tax. Despite being ranked first by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) for a Member position at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), he was not appointed due to adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs allegedly stemming from a matrimonial dispute. Subsequent events included vigilance inspections, a charge memorandum, and compulsory retirement just before superannuation, all of which were challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner faced repeated hurdles, including the rejection of his candidature by a reconstituted SCSC that included an officer against whom he had initiated contempt proceedings.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), then the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court after his compulsory retirement was upheld by the lower courts. The Supreme Court had previously allowed his appeal against the compulsory retirement. This present case arises from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of his candidature by the SCSC.
Issue: Did the inclusion of an officer, against whom the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings, in the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) that rejected the petitioner's candidature for Member (Accountant), ITAT, violate principles of natural justice and create a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby warranting judicial intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution?
Holding: Yes, the inclusion of the officer in the SCSC violated principles of natural justice and created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Supreme Court set aside the minutes of the SCSC meeting and directed a fresh meeting excluding the said officer.
Reasoning: The Court found that the respondents had deliberately created hurdles for the petitioner, exhibiting rank procrastination and bordering on vendetta. The inclusion of "the Officer," who had faced contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner, in the SCSC created a genuine perception of bias. The Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. Citing previous judgments, including State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, the Court reiterated the principle that a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient to vitiate proceedings, even without proof of actual bias. The Court held that the officer's presence in the committee, despite his prior involvement in the dispute, rendered the decision-making process vulnerable and violated the principles of natural justice. The court also noted the absence of a counter affidavit from the respondents, leaving the petitioner's allegations uncontroverted.