New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order that had cleared the way for the Union Government and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Dayanand Wankhede (2008 batch), linked to the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug seizure case during his tenure as Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau.
While refusing to stay the inquiry, the apex court granted limited procedural relief by allowing Wankhede two weeks to submit his reply to the chargesheet before authorities take a fresh decision on the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
Supreme Court Grants Time to Reply, Questions Timing of Inquiry Appointment
A bench comprising P. S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that authorities had appointed both the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer on March 7, 2026, without giving Wankhede adequate time to respond to the chargesheet.
Read Also: No ₹25 Crore Bribe Sought from Shah Rukh Khan, IRS Sameer Wankhede Tells Bombay HC
The Court noted that although it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment, procedural fairness required that the officer be given sufficient opportunity to place his response on record before further disciplinary steps were taken.
The bench directed that Wankhede may file his reply within two weeks, after which the respondent authorities must reconsider within another two weeks whether the appointment of the inquiry officials should continue.
The Court stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and that its order was confined to procedural fairness.
Delhi High Court Had Earlier Cleared Way for Disciplinary Proceedings
The present matter arose after the Delhi High Court on February 27 overturned an earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had quashed disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede.
A division bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that CAT should not have intervened at the stage when only a charge memorandum had been issued.
The High Court observed that a charge memo merely initiates disciplinary proceedings and does not amount to a finding of guilt. Therefore, judicial intervention at such an early stage should be rare and reserved only for exceptional circumstances.
CAT Relief Set Aside as High Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Early Judicial Review
The High Court had emphasised that disciplinary proceedings within government service must ordinarily be allowed to continue unless there is clear illegality or abuse of process visible at the initial stage.
By setting aside the CAT order, the High Court restored the authority of the Union Government and CBIC to continue departmental proceedings against the officer under applicable service rules.
Disciplinary Action Linked to 2021 Cordelia Cruise Drug Seizure Case
The disciplinary proceedings stem from developments related to the 2021 Cordelia cruise seizure case, one of the most high-profile narcotics investigations handled by the NCB in recent years.
At the time, Wankhede was serving as Mumbai Zonal Director of the NCB and supervised the investigation into alleged drug recovery aboard the cruise vessel.
The case drew national attention after the arrest of Aryan Khan, son of Shah Rukh Khan, triggering intense media scrutiny, political debate and later questions regarding aspects of the investigation.
Administrative and Legal Scrutiny Continues
The disciplinary case now proceeds under service rules applicable to officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, where Wankhede serves as an Indian Revenue Service officer.
The Supreme Court’s latest order ensures that while the disciplinary process will continue, authorities must first consider his written defence before formally proceeding with the inquiry structure.
This effectively gives Wankhede a narrow window to present his side before the departmental mechanism moves into the next phase.
Broader Significance for Service Law and Disciplinary Jurisprudence
The ruling also reinforces a broader judicial principle repeatedly applied in service law: courts generally avoid intervening at the charge memo stage unless exceptional illegality is demonstrated.
By allowing procedural correction but declining substantive interference, the Supreme Court balanced departmental autonomy with fairness to the charged officer.
