New Delhi: In a major relief to Sameer Wankhede (IRS: 2008 batch), the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Monday set aside the disciplinary charge memorandum issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and restrained the board from proceeding any further against the officer on the basis of the impugned charge.
Taking strong exception to the conduct of the authorities, the CAT held that the CBIC acted with malice, vendetta, bias, and ulterior motives, observing that the disciplinary action appeared to be aimed at harassing and humiliating the officer rather than enforcing discipline.
Strong Indictment by CAT Bench
The CAT Bench comprising Justice Ranjit More and Rajinder Kashyap delivered a scathing verdict, holding that the charge memorandum issued to Wankhede was driven by biased considerations.
The tribunal observed that allowing the disciplinary proceedings to continue would reduce the inquiry to a “mere farcical show” and stated that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent further harassment and humiliation of the officer.
The Bench categorically restrained the CBIC from proceeding further on the basis of the charge memorandum.
Read also: Who Is IFS Muanpuii Saiawi? India’s Next High Commissioner to New Zealand
CBIC Accused of Acting with Malice and Vendetta
In unusually strong language, the tribunal accused the CBIC of acting with malice and vendetta against the IRS officer. The CAT further noted that the actions of the board suggested an attempt to stall Wankhede’s promotion.
The tribunal remarked that it was inclined to impose costs on the CBIC for its conduct but refrained from doing so, expressing hope that the board would “mend its ways” in the future.
Background: Cordelia Cruise Drug Case
Sameer Wankhede served as the Mumbai Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) from 2020 to January 2022. During his tenure, the NCB registered the high-profile Cordelia Cruise drug case, which involved Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan.
Following the case, allegations were raised regarding procedural lapses in the investigation.
Special Enquiry Team and Legal Challenge
In response to the allegations, the NCB constituted a Special Enquiry Team (SET), which submitted its report in June 2022.
Wankhede challenged the SET report before the CAT, arguing that the officer heading the inquiry had himself supervised the Cordelia cruise investigation, raising questions about impartiality.
In August 2023, the CAT accepted Wankhede’s contention and held that the SET report was only a preliminary enquiry.
Delhi High Court Upholds CAT View
The CAT’s findings were subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court, which clarified that:
- Findings of a preliminary enquiry cannot be used to indict an employee in disciplinary proceedings.
- This judicial clarification further strengthened Wankhede’s legal position.
CBI FIR and Bombay High Court Relief
Meanwhile, in May 2023, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against Wankhede. Notably, the FIR was based on the same material that formed part of the SET report.
Wankhede approached the Bombay High Court, which granted him interim protection from coercive action, offering him relief while the matter remained under judicial scrutiny.
CBIC Issues Charge Memorandum Despite Court Orders
Despite the CAT and High Court rulings, the CBIC issued a charge memorandum on August 18, 2025, alleging that:
- After being transferred out of the NCB, Wankhede sought confidential information from the NCB’s legal advisor
- He attempted to influence the course of the investigation
Wankhede challenged this charge memorandum before the CAT, leading to Monday’s decisive ruling in his favour.
CAT’s Final Ruling
The tribunal concluded that:
- The charge memorandum was tainted with bias
- The disciplinary proceedings lacked bona fide intent
- Continuing the inquiry would amount to abuse of process
Accordingly, the CAT set aside the disciplinary charge and restrained CBIC from acting further on its basis.
Significance of the Judgment
The CAT’s ruling is significant as it:
- Reinforces judicial safeguards against malicious disciplinary action
- Reaffirms that preliminary enquiry findings cannot be the basis for punishment
- Sends a strong message to administrative authorities against misuse of disciplinary mechanisms
Provides substantial relief to an officer who has been under scrutiny for several years
Read also: Delhi HC Directs CAT to Decide IRS Sameer Wankhede Case by Jan 14 or Within 10 Days Thereafter
