CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 31/5/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench upholding the order dtd. 9/12/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1], Principal Bench, that had turned down the challenge laid by him to an order dtd. 27/9/2019, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India communicating the decision of the President of India to compulsorily retire him, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules[2].

(2.) The present case has a chequered history with multiple rounds of litigations spewed between the appellant and the respondents. To have an overview of the matter, we may briefly refer to some facts relevant for deciding the present Appeal. The appellant was a Permanent Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, inducted in the year 1980. Due to a physical disability suffered by him in the course of Army operations, he was demobilized and released from service. In the year 1989, the appellant qualified the Civil Services Examination. He was appointed as an Officer and allocated to the 1990 Batch in the Indian Revenue Service. In due course of his service, the appellant was promoted to higher posts and on 12/1/2012, he was promoted to the rank of Commissioner, in the Department of Income Tax. On 7/7/2014, the appellant was selected and empanelled for appointment as a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal[3] by the Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the then Chief Justice of India. On 15/7/2015, the respondents forwarded the name of the appellant to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet[4] along with his vigilance clearance for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT. In the year 2016, the appellant was empanelled by the ACC for appointment as Joint Secretary to the Government of India. From the year 2017 onwards, started a saga of litigations between the appellant and the respondents, as a result whereof, his appointment as a Member of the ITAT, did not mature.

(3.) The first hurdle he faced was an adverse Intelligence Bureau[5] report. This made the appellant approach the Tribunal for relief. Vide judgment dtd. 10/2/2017, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application filed by the appellant with a direction issued to the respondents to resubmit his adverse IB Report to the Selection Committee for it to take a final view on his appointment to the subject post. The said judgment passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the respondents in a writ petition before the High Court, which came to be dismissed on 30/5/2017, with further directions issued to make the entire process of reconsideration of the appellants candidature by the Selection Committee, time bound. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the respondent - Union of India against the order dtd. 30/5/2017 passed by the High Court, was also dismissed by this Court on 15/11/2017.