Supreme Court
For the first time, the CBDT has suffered a major setback in the matter of compulsorily retiring officers on the grounds of dubious integrity. A two-member bench of the Supreme Court has quashed the order of compulsory retirement of Indian Revenue Service officer Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj in 2019. The order also commented on the role of the then-CBDT chairman.
After 29 years of service, the government gave vigilance clearance to Indian Revenue Service officer Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, considering his integrity beyond dispute. The working style and service of this 1990 batch officer were also considered excellent till July 2019. But on the basis of the wife’s complaint during the matrimonial dispute, IB filed an adverse report against him in 2017.
On the basis of this, a top bureaucrat suffering from so-called prejudice prepared the ground to forcefully retire Bajaj. Despite contempt notices from courts and tribunals, Bajaj was forcibly retired in September 2019 without following due process of law. After hearing the case, a two-member bench of the Supreme Court canceled the order of forced retirement, giving a blow to the CBDT.
Who is Pramod Bajaj
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, a 1990 batch officer in the Indian Revenue Service, was selected as a permanent service officer in the Indian Army in 1980. But due to a physical injury during an operation, he was out of the Indian Army, and in 1989, after passing the Civil Services Examination, he was appointed as an officer of the Indian Revenue Service. In 2012, he was promoted and appointed as Commissioner of Income Tax. In 2013, he applied for the post of Member, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and in 2014, the selection committee placed him at the top position in the list of selected officers.
A judge of the Supreme Court was selected
In July 2014, the selection committee placed him at the top position in the list of selected officers. The chairman of this committee was none other than a serving judge of the Supreme Court. Who was nominated to that post by the Chief Justice? In July 2015, his name was sent to the Selection Committee of the Cabinet for promotion with vigilance clearance and in 2016 he also joined the rank of Joint Secretary in the Government of India.
2017 report became a challenge
In 2017, the IB filed an adverse report against Bajaj, who had worked with an unblemished character in government service for 26 years. Based on this, his appointment with ITAT was stopped. Bajaj approached the tribunal against this. The tribunal ordered that Bajaj’s appointment to the ITAT be reconsidered by resubmitting the IB report. But instead of accepting the order, the CBDT challenged it in the High Court. The High Court rejected this application in May 2017. The government again filed a special appeal, but the court rejected that too in November 2017.
Autocratic Bureaucrats
Instead of taking a lesson from the court’s blow, the CBDT started a campaign to clamp down on Bajaj. A vigilance inquiry was conducted in his office in November 2017 and in January 2018 he was served a show cause notice. Along with this, the vigilance clearance given to him was also stopped. After this, on April 26, 2018, the selection committee constituted under the chairmanship of Justice Kurian Joseph had said in its order that the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, so there is no justification for the adverse IB report based on the complaint given.
So Bajaj was re-elected as a member of ITAT. Despite this, in May 2018, his name was included in the list of officers of doubtful integrity. In this case, the tribunal set aside the action of CBDT. Against which the High Court also dismissed the CBDT’s petition. The government filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. But she too was rejected.
CBDT chairman gets notice in contempt case
When Bajaj, who has alleged bias against him, filed a petition for contempt proceedings for not complying with the High Court order of May 2017, the court issued a show-cause notice to the then CBDT chairman, PC Modi.
Government initiates vigilance probe
Instead of taking a lesson from the court’s blow, the CBDT started a campaign to clamp down on Bajaj. In November itself, a vigilance inquiry was conducted in his office and in January 2018 he was given a show cause notice. Along with this, the vigilance clearance given to him was also stopped. Subsequently, in May 2018, his name was included in the list of officers of doubtful integrity.
A court order shows flouted
But the bureaucrats started the process of forcibly retiring Bajaj despite the court order. A notice was issued to Bajaj on 17 July 2019 and he was compulsorily retired under 56(J) on 27 September 2019, even before the completion of three months. During the hearing of the case, the government sided that nine complaints were pending against Bajaj. Based on this, he was forcibly retired under 56(J).
None of the arguments worked
Of the nine complaints mentioned by the government, four had already been closed. The remaining five also turned out to be fake. Later, three allegations against Bajaj were said to be important. The first of which was the complaint made by his wife. Second was a flat bought by him without permission and the third was attending court proceedings without sanctioned leave.
The court said on the basis of available facts that the IB had given an adverse report on the basis of his wife’s complaint. While the reality is that the ongoing dispute between Bajaj and his wife has ended under the agreement. The flat that was alleged to have been bought has been proven to have been bought by Bajaj’s brother. The third allegation was also not proved.
Question on the role of CBDT chairman
In the Supreme Court, a two-member bench of Justices JS Bopanna and Hima Kohli said that Bajaj, questioning the role of the then CBDT chairman, accused him of being biased. Since Bajaj’s petition, the high court had issued a contempt notice to the then CBDT chairman and he was also part of the review committee of the government before which Bajaj had filed an appeal against his forced retirement. Although Bajaj has leveled allegations of institutional bias against the then CBDT chairman, he has not been included as a party. Therefore, these allegations cannot be considered.
Forced retirement order canceled
The Supreme Court said in its judgment that we cannot accept this hazy layer of smoke. The government has taken punitive action against Bajaj by withholding his promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and appointment as a member of the ITAT. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. This order was passed with the intention of short-circuiting the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant to remove him forthwith. With this, the court quashed the orders of Bajaj’s forced retirement.
