The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside a January 2026 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan allowed a petition filed by the Union government and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), holding that the Tribunal had erred in restraining the authorities from continuing with departmental action against the officer.
Background of the Dispute
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the CBIC following a preliminary inquiry conducted by a Special Enquiry Team (SET). The inquiry examined complaints related to Wankhede’s conduct during his tenure with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), particularly in connection with the high-profile 2021 Cordelia cruise drug seizure case.
The case had drawn nationwide attention after the NCB arrested several individuals, including Aryan Khan, son of actor Shah Rukh Khan. Wankhede, who was serving as a zonal director with the NCB at the time, had led the investigation.
Subsequent complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the probe led to the constitution of the SET, whose findings formed the basis for the initiation of disciplinary action by the CBIC, Wankhede’s cadre-controlling authority.
CAT’s Earlier Ruling
Challenging the charge memorandum issued to him, Wankhede approached the CAT, contending that the preliminary inquiry findings could not legally justify the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings. He argued that the process adopted by the authorities violated established procedural safeguards.
Wankhede further claimed that the charge memorandum was arbitrary, lacked legal foundation, and was driven by mala fide intent. He alleged that the disciplinary action was tainted by bias and motivated considerations.
In January 2026, the CAT accepted his arguments and quashed the charge memorandum. The Tribunal also restrained the CBIC from proceeding further, observing that the government’s actions appeared to reflect prejudice and malice.
Government’s Challenge Before High Court
Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the Union government and the CBIC moved the Delhi High Court. They argued that the CAT had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening at the stage of issuance of charges, a preliminary step in disciplinary proceedings.
The government contended that judicial interference at such an early stage is limited and that the Tribunal ought not to have examined the merits of the allegations before the inquiry process had run its course. It also objected to the CAT’s observations imputing mala fide intent and bias to the authorities.
High Court’s Decision
Allowing the government’s plea, the High Court set aside the CAT’s order and cleared the way for the CBIC to continue the disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede in accordance with law.
