The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has given relief to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede by stopping departmental enquiry linked to the Aryan Khan drug case. The tribunal said the matter is already before the Bombay High Court and ordered no further action till the next hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Wednesday passed an ad-interim order stopping further departmental enquiry against Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede.
This departmental case was connected to allegations that came out of his investigation in the high-profile 2021 Aryan Khan drug case.
The Bench of Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Administrative Member) looked into the matter and observed that the disciplinary proceedings were based on the same material that Wankhede had already submitted earlier before the Bombay High Court.
The tribunal recorded,
“It is not in dispute that the impugned charge memorandum is premised upon very material and evidence which the applicant himself had placed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court…in which an interim stay has already been granted in his favour. Thus, the matter is sub judice.”
After making this observation, the tribunal stopped any further departmental proceedings against Wankhede and also asked the Revenue Department to file its response to the petition filed by him challenging the action.
The charge memorandum, dated August 18, contains two main allegations against Sameer Wankhede. The first allegation says he “wilfully and deliberately” tried to seek sensitive and confidential information from the Departmental Legal Advisor of NCB in June 2022 even though he was already officially detached from the agency.
The second allegation claims that Wankhede obtained an “assurance” from the same legal advisor to influence the Aryan Khan drug case investigation “towards a predetermined outcome for ulterior motive.”
It also points towards a recorded conversation that allegedly shows there was a prior understanding in this matter.
The tribunal further noted that an interim stay had already been granted earlier by the Bombay High Court in a related matter. Taking this into account, it issued notice to the Revenue Department and directed that no further proceedings should go on.
The tribunal specifically ordered,
“By way of interim measure, we direct the respondents not to proceed further with the departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant, pursuant to the impugned charge memorandum, till the next date of hearing.”
The next hearing in this case has been fixed for October 14, 2025.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections in This Case
| Law / Legal Body | Section / Provision | Explanation in Simple Words | How It Applies in Wankhede’s Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) | Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 | Allows government servants to file applications against disciplinary actions or service-related disputes. | Wankhede approached CAT to challenge departmental enquiry against him. |
| Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 | Section 14 | Gives CAT the power to handle service matters of central government employees. | CAT used this power to stay proceedings against Wankhede. |
| Bombay High Court | Article 226 of the Constitution of India | High Courts can give interim relief or stay proceedings in ongoing matters. | Bombay High Court had already given interim stay earlier in a related case, which CAT noted. |
| Charge Memorandum (Service Rules) | Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 | Provides procedure for conducting departmental enquiries against government servants. | The Revenue Department issued a charge memorandum dated August 18 against Wankhede under this rule. |
| Concept of “Sub Judice” | Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Section 10 | A matter already under consideration of a court/tribunal should not be pursued simultaneously in another forum. | CAT stayed proceedings saying the issue is “sub judice” because High Court is already examining it. |
| Disciplinary Proceedings (Government Service Law) | CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 | Prescribes rules of conduct and integrity for government servants. | Allegations of misconduct against Wankhede (seeking confidential info, trying to influence outcome) were framed under these rules. |
- Advocate Ajesh Luthra assisted by Advocate Jatin Parashar represented Sameer Wankhede.
- Advocate Hanu Bhaskar appeared on behalf of the Revenue Department.
CASE TITLE:
Sameer Wankhede vs Revenue
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sameer Wankhede
Click Here to Read Our Reports on SRK & Aryan Khan
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
