|
The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against IRS officer Sameer Danyadev Wankhede, in connection with developments arising out of the Cordelia cruise drug seizure case.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan. The Centre has assailed the CAT's January 19, 2026, order, by which the Tribunal had set aside a charge memorandum issued to Wankhede by his administrative department, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The disciplinary action stemmed from allegations linked to the high-profile Cordelia cruise drug bust, in which actor Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan was arrested in 2021. Wankhede, a Customs officer who earlier headed the Mumbai zone of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), had approached the Tribunal after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him following his exit from the NCB amid controversy surrounding the investigation. In its impugned order, the CAT held that the charge memorandum dated August 18, 2025, was vitiated by procedural impropriety and amounted to an abuse of process. The Tribunal observed that the material relied upon by the authorities was already under consideration before the Bombay High Court in proceedings related to the Cordelia cruise case and, therefore, could not form the basis of parallel departmental action. On this reasoning, the CAT quashed the charge memo and confirmed its earlier interim stay on the inquiry. Challenging these conclusions, the Union of India has argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering at the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum, contrary to settled principles of service law. The Centre contends that courts and tribunals ordinarily refrain from judicial review at the threshold of disciplinary proceedings unless exceptional circumstances are made out. According to the Centre, the charge memo was not founded on any barred or impermissible material. It was submitted that the proposed disciplinary action was based on a call transcript dated June 2, 2022, which Wankhede himself had placed on record before the Bombay High Court. The Centre claims that the transcript prima facie reveals attempts to access confidential information and influence an ongoing investigation even after Wankhede's formal de-attachment from the NCB. The Union has further argued that the CAT erred in treating the pendency of criminal proceedings as a bar to departmental action. It was submitted that the interim protection granted by the Bombay High Court was limited to protection from arrest and did not stay either the investigation or disciplinary proceedings, which operate in distinct legal domains. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Centre has maintained that issuance of a charge-sheet does not, by itself, infringe any legal right of a government servant and that interference at such an early stage undermines administrative discipline. The matter came up before the Delhi High Court earlier, but the hearing was deferred after counsel for Wankhede sought time, citing late receipt of the Centre's petition. After hearing detailed submissions from both sides, the Division Bench has now reserved its verdict. The Union of India has sought the setting aside of the CAT's January 19 order and revival of the disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede, arguing that the Tribunal's decision runs contrary to established principles governing service jurisprudence and judicial restraint. (ANI)
|
