HomeOther LawsFrom CAT To HC : Question Marks Over Dept.’s Bona Fides as...

From CAT To HC : Question Marks Over Dept.’s Bona Fides as Sameer Wankhede Faces Relentless Vendetta

The continuing departmental proceedings against IRS officer and former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede have drawn sharp attention, with mounting questions over whether the actions stem from bona fide disciplinary concerns or a sustained vendetta.

What Happened?

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.

In its judgment, 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.

Conclusion of the Court
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.

Case Details

Case Title: Union Of India And Ors Versus Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede

Case No.: W.P.(C) 10271/2025 & CM APPL. 42676/2025

Date:  28.08.2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Ashish K. Dixit

Counsel For Respondent: Sudhir Nandrajog and Arvind Nayar, Sr.Advocates

Read More: CESTAT Cancels Equal Penalty, Imposes Reduced Fine for Delayed Service Tax

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

donate