The Bombay High Court has raised serious concerns over the Narcotics Control Bureau’s (NCB) decision to initiate repeated departmental proceedings against its former Mumbai Zonal Director, Sameer Wankhede, allegedly on the basis of anonymous complaints.
Observing that investigating officers cannot be subjected to repeated harassment merely because allegations are levelled against them, the bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata granted interim protection to Wankhede while admitting his writ petition for final hearing.
The bench questioned the basis on which the NCB continued to initiate preliminary inquiries against its own investigating officer despite the complaints being anonymous. The Court observed that if investigative agencies routinely act on such allegations without adequate scrutiny, it could set a dangerous precedent for the criminal justice system.
Buy Now: Think Before You Pay Cash: 50+ Landmark Rulings on Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961
During the hearing, the Bench sought an explanation from the NCB on why repeated inquiries were being initiated against Wankhede solely on the basis of allegations made by an accused person or through anonymous complaints.
The judges remarked that investigating officers should not be exposed to continuous departmental action merely because individuals against whom they conducted investigations later choose to make allegations. Such an approach, the Court indicated, could have a chilling effect on honest officers performing their statutory duties.
The High Court also referred to the existing administrative framework governing anonymous complaints and questioned why those safeguards appeared to have been overlooked.
The Bench observed that, despite established norms on handling anonymous complaints, one preliminary inquiry after another had allegedly been initiated against Wankhede. Prima facie, the Court noted that the continuous proceedings appeared to border on harassment rather than a fair disciplinary process.
The Court also questioned the timing of the allegations.
It asked why the individuals who later levelled allegations against Wankhede had not raised those issues either at the time of their arrest or during the course of the original investigation. The Bench sought to know why the allegations surfaced only after a considerable lapse of time and why they were subsequently treated with seriousness by the NCB.
The judges expressed concern that permitting departmental action based solely on belated allegations by accused persons could adversely affect the morale of investigating officers.
The Court observed that if every accused person is able to trigger departmental proceedings against an investigating officer simply by making allegations after the investigation, it would discourage officers from discharging their duties fearlessly and could ultimately undermine the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies.
The Bombay High Court admitted Wankhede’s writ petition and granted him interim protection against further coercive departmental action. The interim relief will continue until the matter is finally decided by the Court.
Read More: Why Are Promotions to Assistant Commissioner in CBIC Stuck? Explained
