The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has quashed the disciplinary charge memorandum issued against IRS officer Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, holding that findings of the Special Enquiry Team (SET) — being purely preliminary in nature — cannot be relied upon to initiate or sustain departmental proceedings. The Tribunal also found that the process adopted by the authorities, including the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), suffered from serious infirmities and reflected institutional bias.
Background and service record
Sameer Wankhede, a 2008-batch Indian Revenue Service officer, is presently posted as Additional Commissioner under the Department of Revenue. Prior to this, he served as Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai. During his career spanning nearly two decades, Wankhede has served with agencies such as Customs, DRI, NIA and NCB, and has received multiple commendations, including the Union Home Minister’s Medal for Excellence in Investigation in 2021.
Origin of the controversy
The controversy traces back to October 2021, when NCB Mumbai registered Crime No. 94/2021 following a raid on the Cordelia Cruise. While Wankhede supervised the investigation, a senior officer of the NCB actively issued directions and supervised the probe during a crucial period. Subsequently, allegations of procedural lapses were raised against Wankhede, leading to the constitution of a Special Enquiry Team.
Constitution of SET and allegations of bias
The SET submitted its report in June 2022. Wankhede challenged the enquiry before CAT, contending that the officer heading the SET had himself supervised the investigation and therefore “could not have been the judge of his own cause”. The Tribunal, in an earlier round, accepted this prima facie contention and observed:
“Respondent No. 4, in our opinion, being actively involved in the investigation could not have been the part of SET”.
The Tribunal further noted that WhatsApp communications showed the said officer “not only supervised and gave instructions to the applicant… but also gave the plan of action” during the investigation period.
Chain of proceedings and alleged harassment
Despite judicial scrutiny, the SET report was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs and thereafter to CBIC, along with a draft charge sheet proposing major penalty proceedings. Wankhede alleged that this marked the beginning of sustained harassment.
In 2023, relying substantially on the SET material, the CBI registered an FIR against him and conducted searches at his residence, which yielded no incriminating material. The Bombay High Court granted interim protection against coercive action, and later admitted his writ petition, recording that “arguable questions” arose in the matter.
Parallelly, multiple departmental enquiries and notices were issued, compelling Wankhede to approach CAT again. In OA No. 1033/2024, the Tribunal categorically directed that evidence collected during preliminary enquiries, including the SET, “will not be relied upon in any further departmental inquiry/disciplinary proceedings”.
Issuance of charge memorandum and CAT’s interim stay
Notwithstanding these directions and the pendency of criminal proceedings before the Bombay High Court, CBIC issued Charge Memorandum No. 30/2025 dated 18.08.2025. The charges were founded on material which was already sub judice and formed part of the preliminary enquiry. CAT stayed the disciplinary proceedings at the interim stage, noting that the very basis of the charge memo was under judicial consideration
Final decision and court’s observations
After completion of pleadings and following directions of the Delhi High Court for expeditious disposal, CAT finally decided the matter on 19.01.2026. The Tribunal reiterated settled law that findings of a preliminary enquiry cannot be used to indict a government servant in disciplinary proceedings. It relied upon its own earlier orders as well as the Delhi High Court’s clarification that “it is trite law that the findings of a preliminary enquiry cannot be used for indicting an employee in a departmental enquiry”.
The Tribunal found that CBIC had proceeded mechanically, without independent application of mind, and in disregard of binding judicial directions. The charge memorandum was accordingly quashed, bringing to an end the departmental proceedings initiated on the strength of the SET report.
Case Details
Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede Versus UOI
Case No.: O.A. No.3258 of 2025
Date: 19/01/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Ajesh Luthra
Counsel For Respondent: Ravi Prakash, Senior Advocate
Read More: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Mass Disqualification of Directors, Orders Reactivation of DINs
