The Supreme Court granted interim relief to former NCB officer Sameer Wankhede in his challenge to disciplinary proceedings linked to the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust. It directed authorities to afford him a fair opportunity before taking any further steps.
The Supreme Court granted interim relief to former NCB officer Sameer Wankhede in his challenge to disciplinary proceedings stemming from the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust, directing authorities to afford him a fair opportunity before moving forward.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard Wankhede’s appeal against a Delhi High Court decision that had set-aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order quashing the disciplinary action.
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia, representing Wankhede, argued that the charge sheet was fundamentally defective and lacked substantive allegations.
Alleging victimisation and procedural irregularities, Patwalia contended,
“There is no charge made out at all. The charge sheet has been filed only to deny him promotion,”
He noted that the charge sheet was issued almost three years after the alleged incidents and only after the CAT had handed down favourable orders to Wankhede.
Patwalia also claimed that, despite the CAT directing Wankhede’s promotion, the authorities neither complied with that order nor challenged it in time. He argued that the belated initiation of disciplinary proceedings was intended to avoid the consequences of the CAT’s directive.
The bench, however, said it was not prepared to quash the proceedings at this juncture.
Adding that the Court would step in if required but did not see grounds to terminate the proceedings outright, Justice Narasimha observed,
“It is not as if it is a clean slate where there is nothing at all,”
The Court did, however, take note of procedural issues raised by Wankhede particularly the appointment of an inquiry officer without giving him a proper chance to respond to the charge sheet.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, the bench flagged that authorities appeared to have moved ahead without awaiting Wankhede’s reply, raising fairness concerns.
The ASG maintained that appointing the inquiry officer complied with the High Court’s directions, since Wankhede had not responded within the prescribed period.
Seeking to balance both sides, the Supreme Court issued a limited order to protect procedural fairness: it found that the inquiry officer’s appointment on March 7, 2026, had been made without providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner and directed that Wankhede be given one week to file his reply to the charge sheet.
The authorities were then ordered to decide within two weeks whether to appoint an inquiry officer and proceed with the disciplinary inquiry. The bench clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
In February, a division bench of the High Court had set aside the CAT’s earlier order that quashed disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the Cordelia case, allowing the Central Government’s challenge and thereby restoring the charge memorandum.
The CAT had previously cancelled the departmental action, finding serious procedural impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process faulting the issuance of the August 18, 2025 charge memorandum and concluding the decision to proceed reflected a predetermined mindset.
Separately, the Court had earlier criticised the Union government for withholding material facts when it sought a review of a prior order directing Wankhede’s promotion.
The government had moved to review the August 28, 2025 order in which the High Court had upheld the CAT’s direction to open a sealed cover relating to Wankhede’s promotion and had directed his promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes with effect from January 1, 2021.
Case Title: Sameer Wankhede v. Union of India
Read More Reports On Sameer Wankhede