The CAT principal bench quashed the CBIC’s disciplinary charge against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede, calling it retaliation. The Tribunal said the chain of events showed “malice in law and personal vendetta” and a colourable exercise of power overall.
The principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled to cancel the disciplinary charge against Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
The tribunal has prohibited further action based on Charge Memorandum no. 30/2025, dated August 18, 2025.
A Bench comprising Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member–Administrative) upheld Wankhede’s challenge to the Charge Memorandum.
The tribunal stated,
“The impugned Charge Memorandum dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits in accordance with law and rules on the subject,”
The tribunal expressed concern over the authorities’ biased treatment towards Wankhede, suggesting that their motivations seemed malicious.
The CAT observed,
“The motive involved in the issuance of the charge sheet is driven by the above biased considerations, and the inquiry would be a mere farcical show, the conclusion of which is already well known. Hence, we interfere at this stage itself to avoid further harassment and humiliation of the applicant,”
It criticized CBIC’s actions as an apparent attempt to obstruct Wankhede’s promotion.
The judgment continued,
“The chain of events unmistakably demonstrates that the impugned Charge Memorandum bears no real nexus with the purported allegations but appears to be retaliation of respondents arising out of a number of decisions in the matters of the applicant and also is looked as an endeavour to stall the promotion of the applicant. Such conduct is ex facie demonstrative of malice in law and personal vendetta and colourable exercise of power,”
Although the tribunal considered imposing costs on CBIC, it ultimately decided against it, expressing hope that the CBIC would improve its practices.
The CAT remarked,
“For the reasons deliberated in this order, we impose a great restraint on ourselves and refrain from imposing heavy costs on the respondents, with the hope that they will mend their ways and establish an administrative mechanism that upholds the rule of law,”
Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, previously served as the Mumbai Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) from 2020 to January 2022.
During this time, the NCB Mumbai was involved in the Cordelia Cruise drug case related to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan.
Subsequently, allegations of procedural errors emerged regarding the investigation, leading to the formation of a special enquiry team (SET) by the NCB.
The SET submitted its findings in June 2022. Wankhede contested the SET report at the CAT, arguing that the officer leading the inquiry had previously overseen the investigation into the Cordelia case.
In August 2023, the CAT supported this argument, ruling that the officer involved in the Cordelia investigation could not participate in the SET. The tribunal also noted that the SET report was merely preliminary.
This legal position was later upheld by the Delhi High Court, which clarified that preliminary enquiry findings cannot be used to charge an employee in disciplinary actions.
Meanwhile, in May 2023, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR against Wankhede, based on evidence included in the SET report. Wankhede sought relief from the Bombay High Court, which granted him interim protection from coercive measures; this protection remains in force as criminal proceedings are still pending.
Despite existing judicial guidance, the CBIC issued a charge memorandum on August 18, 2025. This charge alleged that Wankhede sought confidential information from the NCB’s legal advisor after his transfer and attempted to influence the investigation’s direction.
In response, Wankhede brought the matter before the CAT. The tribunal noted that the charge memorandum was based on the same evidence that had been part of the preliminary enquiry and was also the foundation of the ongoing criminal case.
The CAT commented,
“The respondents in gross disregard to the above mentioned stay order stopping further action on their part have moved ahead and now resorted to issuance of major penalty/proceedings against the applicant vide the impugned Charge Memorandum,”
The tribunal examined the full history of litigation across multiple proceedings before the CAT and the High Courts. It concluded that the authorities were relentlessly attempting action against Wankhede using material deemed unusable for disciplinary reasons.
The tribunal ruled that disciplinary actions based on such evidence, especially when it was already subject to appeal before the Bombay High Court, could not hold up. The charge memorandum was consequently invalidated.
“For the reasons deliberated in this Order, we impose a great restraint on ourselves and refrain from imposing heavy costs on the respondents, with the hope that they will mend their ways and establish an administrative mechanism that upholds the rule of law.”
Wankhede was represented by Advocates Ajesh Luthra, Jatin Parashar, and Meenu Sharma, while the Union of India and CBIC were represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, along with Advocates Hanu Bhaskar, Astu Khandelwal, and Yasharth.
Case Title: Sameer Wankhede Vs Union of India
Read More Reports On Sameer Wankhede