The Supreme Court has postponed the personal presence of chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) and directed Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to proceed in the case related to promotion of IRS officer and former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while listing the matter on 08.01.2026; stated, “in the meanwhile, the Central Administrative Tribunal may postpone the personal presence of the Chairman, CBIC. The Tribunal may, however, proceed with the hearing of the matter.”
On the earlier occasion, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 20,000 on CBIC for concealing the fact the charge memo has been stayed by the CAT.
Background
Sameer Wankhede filed the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in respect of his promotion, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2024, directing the department to open the sealed cover relating to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede’s promotion. In its order, CAT had held that if Wankhede’s name was recommended by the UPSC, he should be granted promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner with retrospective effect from 1 January 2021. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the authorities to place his name in the appropriate position in the final seniority list of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes dated 28 March 2024. The directions were to be complied with within four weeks of receiving the order.
When the department willfully failed to implement CAT’s order, Sameer Wankhede (the applicant) was constrained to file Contempt Petition (CP). Notice in the scontempt petition was issued on 30.04.2025, thereby putting the department to terms.
On 15.07.2025, the CAT summoned the Chairman of CBIC personally, owing to the deliberate and contumacious disobedience of its directions.
Aggrieved by the summons, the department approached the Delhi High Court, and the matter was heard at length. Vide order dated 29.07.2025, the High Court of Delhi was pleased to reserve judgment, thus indicating that the applicant’s case carried substantial weight.
Immediately thereafter, and significantly on 19.08.2025, in the course of proceedings before the CAT in the pending Contempt Petition, that the department, for the very first time, made a statement that a charge sheet had been issued to the applicant.
Delhi High Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain has dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India challenging a 17 December 2024 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had directed that the sealed cover pertaining to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede’s promotion be opened. The Tribunal had further held that if his name was recommended by the UPSC, he should be granted promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2021, and his name placed appropriately in the final seniority list of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes dated 28 March 2024.
The Union government, opposing the order, argued that serious allegations were pending against Wankhede, including FIRs, ECIRs, and vigilance probes. However, the High Court rejected the contention, noting that the sealed cover procedure cannot be applied in the absence of formal disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
The Court recorded that no departmental proceedings were pending against Wankhede as no charge-sheet had been issued. The Union itself, in its affidavit before CAT, admitted that by virtue of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order dated 12 March 2024, evidence recorded in the Special Enquiry Team (SET) inquiry could not be relied upon in any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), through an OM dated 7 August 2024, had taken note of this position, and the CBIC had advised that charge memos should not be issued at that stage. Wankhede was neither suspended nor facing any charge-sheet in a criminal case.
The Court stressed that the three conditions for invoking the sealed cover procedure, as laid down in the Office Memorandum of 14 September 1992 (following the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.V. Jankiraman), were not satisfied. Merely citing serious allegations, without charge-sheets or suspension, was insufficient.
Quoting Jankiraman, the Court reiterated that “the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served in disciplinary proceedings or a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case, not before.”
While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations raised by the government, the Bench observed that investigations had not culminated in formal proceedings and, unlike precedents cited by the Centre, no admission of guilt or proved charges existed against Wankhede.
Finding “no infirmity” in the CAT’s order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the government’s writ petition and directed that the Tribunal’s directions be complied with within four weeks.
Consequently, the government filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
Case Details
Case Title: UOI Versus Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 72072/2025
Date: 19-12-2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Counsel For Respondent: Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
