TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 an Hon'ble sitting Judge of this Court. The Committee evaluated the petitioner and ranked him first on the all-India merit list. It appears that this success of the petitioner did not go down well with the Officers of the respondents. The chain of events which transpired as a sequel have led to the filing of the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 5. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:- i. "Issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction or declaration for re-constitution of the Search Cum Selection Committee to consider the case of Petitioner within four weeks in terms of orders dated 15.11.2017 and 09.09.2020 in SLP(C) No.22596/2017 and M.A. 2557....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the year 2016, the petitioner was also empaneled by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for appointment as Joint Secretary to the Government of India. B. Litigation Arising from the Withholding of Appointment 11. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of a formal appointment letter despite being placed at the top of the merit list by the SCSC, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), Lucknow Bench, by filing Original Application No. 95 of 2016, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 10th February, 2017, directing the respondents to place the alleged IB report before the SCSC within a period of one month, for it to take a final view on the petitioner's claim for appointment to the subject post. 12. Pursuant thereto, the re-constituted SCSC convened its meeting and, vide its opinion dated 26th April, 2018, rejected the fetters created by the respondents and reiterated the merit position of the petitioner for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. 13. Meanwhile, the respondents assailed the order dated 10th February, 2017, passed by the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition No.8648 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decision of the respondents denying him vigilance clearance. The Tribunal further directed the respondents to forward the name of the petitioner to the competent authority for selection and appointment to the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT. The respondents remained adamant and did not comply with the said judgment and again preferred a writ petition before the High Court. Admittedly, no interim order staying the operation of the judgment dated 6th March, 2019 was granted by the High Court. 17. Aggrieved by the continued non-compliance of the order dated 30th May, 2017, passed by the High Court in his favour, as well as the directions issued by the Tribunal vide its common judgment dated 6th March, 2019, in O.A. No. 137 of 2018 and O.A. No. 279 of 2018, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, being Contempt Petition No. 2681 of 2017 before the High Court and Contempt Case Nos. 15 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 before the Tribunal, respectively. 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 Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT be placed afresh before the SCSC. 23. An office memorandum was issued on 9th September, 2019, directing Respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice) to place the matter relating to the issuance of the charge memorandum and the action under Rule 56(j) before the SCSC afresh, in terms of the directions of the appointing authority. This Court, vide order dated 9th January, 2020 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.2557 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22596 of 2017, observed that the respondents would be at liberty to consider all relevant material, including material that had emerged after 29th August, 2014, insofar as the same bore upon the suitability of the petitioner for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. 24. Further directions were issued granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid actions of the respondents in accordance with law. 25. Pursuant to the notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner again appeared before the third SCSC. The Committee, however, deferred consideration of the petitioner's candidature until judicial scrutiny of the two pending actions, namely the char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said Charge Memorandum; all the same, we have cursorily gone through the Charge Memorandum that mentions three charges - one alleging that the appellant failed to seek permission from the department to purchase a flat in relation to the matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged wife and the second one is in respect of the allegation of bigamy levelled against him by his estranged wife. We have already noted earlier that during the course of the matrimonial dispute, the parties had arrived at a settlement and the flat that was agreed to be given to the wife, was not purchased by the appellant but by his brother, which fact is amply borne out from the documents placed on record. The matrimonial dispute between the parties stood closed on a decree of divorce being granted on the basis of mutual consent. That the respondents were also cognizant of the said fact, is apparent from the contents of O.M. dated 15th July, 2015 which records inter alia that the said allegations levelled by the wife had not been established. The third charge was relating to the appellant having attended Court hearings without sanctioned leave. However, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lsory retirement was passed in this case on 27th September, 2019 whereas the appellant was to superannuate in ordinary course in January, 2020. 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' and had assessed his integrity as 'Beyond doubt'. But in less than three months reckoned therefrom, the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conclusion that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scale of 1 - 10 on 31st July, 2019 it has not been shown as to what had transpired thereafter that made the respondents resort to FR 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire him with just three months of service left for his retirement, in routine. In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Selection Committee and Present Writ Petition 32. Upon appearing before the fourth SCSC in its meeting held on 1st September, 2024, the petitioner was surprised to find that "the Officer" who had earlier been actively involved in matter relating to the petitioner's protracted struggle for appointment and had faced contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner (Contempt Petition (C) No.210/2024), was included as a member of the Committee. 33. Thereafter, by proceedings communicated in November, 2025, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Committee. 34. Aggrieved by the minutes of the SCSC dated 1st September, 2024, which were received by the petitioner in November, 2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 35. Notice was issued to the respondents on 2nd December, 2025, returnable on 16th December, 2025 on which date appearance was entered on behalf of the Union of India, and two weeks' time was sought to obtain instructions and to file a counter affidavit, if necessary. It was made clear on the very date that no further time would be granted for the said purpose, ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the fourth SCSC was none other than "the Officer", who had earlier been a respondent in contempt proceedings instituted by the petitioner before this Court. He contended that owing to his prior prosecution in contempt, "the Officer" harboured animus and a biased attitude against the petitioner. 39. The petitioner further contended that the fact that the decision of the SCSC is supposed to have been taken with a consensus, the presence of "the Officer" as a member of the Committee gave rise to a genuine apprehension as regards the fairness of the process, and particularly in view of the fact that on two earlier occasions the SCSCs had recommended the petitioner for appointment with high evaluation. Repeated vindictive actions and egoistic approach was adopted by the Departmental officers who persecuted the petitioner on baseless charges, and in a gross arbitrary manner, which conclusion has been recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 3rd March, 2023 (supra). In this backdrop, it was urged that the presence and participation of "the Officer" in the composition of the SCSC, which resolved not to recommend the petitioner, bolsters the genuine and sustainable apprehension e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1 on the doctrine of bias, which encapsulate the principles governing the present controversy. The relevant observations made by this Court in the said judgment are reproduced herein below: - "58. Absence of bias can be defined as the total absence of any preconceived notions in the mind of the authority/Judge, and in the absence of such a situation it is impossible to expect a fair deal/trial and no one would therefore see any point in holding/participating in one as it would serve no purpose. The Judge/authority must be able to think dispassionately and submerge any private feelings with respect to each aspect of the case. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable i.e. which a reasonable person would be likely to entertain. Bias is one of the limbs of natural justice. The doctrine of bias emerges from the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria causa. It applies only when the interest attributed to an individual is such so as to tempt him to make a decision in favour of, or to further his own cause. There may not be a case of actual bias, or an apprehension to the effect that the matter most certainly will not be decided or dealt with im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judicature at Allahabad in Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992 SCC OnLine All 465), wherein the following observations were made: - "15. The allegations of the petitioners are that the proceedings before the Examination Grievance Board as well as Central Grievance Board are both vitiated. Before dealing with the allegations regarding the Examination Grievance Board I may first mention that the proceedings before the Central Grievance Board were vitiated because of the presence of respondent No. 4 in the said Board. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit of the University it is mentioned that the respondent No. 4 was a member of the Central Grievance Board which considered the petitioners representation. Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 also mentions that the respondent No. 2 was present in the meeting of the Central Grievance Board. In my opinion, the presence of the respondent No. 4 on the Central Grievance Board completely vitiates the proceedings of the said Board since the main allegations of the petitioners were against respondent No. 4. In this connection it may be mentioned that by now it is well established principle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal effect may nevertheless have a seriously judicial effect on the legally protected interest of individuals (e.g. that it is a necessary pre-requisite of the final order) and the person making the report or preliminary decision must not be affected by the interest or likelihood of bias. 18. In J. Mahapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, [(1984) 4 SCC 103 : AIR 1984 SC 1572.] the selection of books for school and college libraries was held to be vitiated because the Selection Committee included a person who was the author of the books which had been submitted for selection by the committee. 19. In K. Chellaih v. Chiamman, [AIR 1973 Mad 122.] the Chairman of the Board of the Industrial Finance Corporation had passed the dismissal order against the petitioner, and the said Chairman was a member of the Board which considered the appeal against the dismissal order. It was held that the appellate decision was vitiated. 20. In Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India, [(1991) 1 SCC 104.] it was held that the presence of the mother-in-law of the selected candidate on the selection committee vitiated the selection. It was also held therein, following the decision in Ashok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kelihood of bias, a reasonable likelihood from the point of view of the petitioners will vitiate the proceedings. In G. Sarana's case (supra) the test laid down was "Whether there is a substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party." (2) Even if one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated because it is not possible to known as to what extent such disqualified member influenced the others. (3) Where a person is disqualified due to rule of bias, he should disassociate himself from the proceedings. (4) Bias in a member of a recommendatory body will also vitiate the proceedings." [Emphasis supplied] 44. 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. (Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 10; Jaichan....