The Delhi High Court (HC) on Friday allowed the Union government’s plea challenging the central administrative tribunal (CAT) order that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede.
A division bench comprising justice Anil Kshetarpal and justice Amit Mahajan set aside the tribunal’s 19 January 2026 order which had restrained the central board of indirect taxes and customs (CBIC) from proceeding further against Mr Wankhede.
“The petition is allowed,” the bench says, while pronouncing the verdict. A detailed copy of the judgment is awaited.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Mr Wankhede by CBIC following allegations linked to a preliminary inquiry conducted by a special enquiry team (SET).
The inquiry examined complaints against the IRS officer arising from his role in the high-profile 2021 Cordelia cruise drug seizure case while he was serving as the zonal director of the narcotics control bureau (NCB) in Mumbai.
Actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan, was arrested by the NCB in connection with the case, which drew nationwide attention.
Subsequently, Mr Wankhede came under scrutiny by multiple agencies, including the central bureau of investigation (CBI) and directorate of enforcement (ED). In July 2023, CBI registered a corruption and extortion case alleging that Mr Wankhede and others demanded ₹25 crore from Shah Rukh Khan in exchange for not implicating Aryan Khan in the case.
The departmental action stemmed from a charge memorandum issued on 18 August 2025. It alleged that despite his formal de-attachment from the NCB, Mr Wankhede attempted to unauthorisedly access official and confidential information and sought to influence the course of investigation.
The allegations were based on a call transcript dated June 2022 between Mr Wankhede and the NCB’s departmental legal adviser. Notably, a copy of the transcript had been placed on record by Mr Wankhede himself before the Bombay HC in his petition seeking quashing of the CBI case.
According to the Union government, the charges were specific and based on material placed on record by the IRS officer himself. The government contended that Mr Wankhede had failed to discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity, in violation of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
On 19 January 2026, the CAT quashed the charge memorandum, holding that the departmental proceedings were vitiated by grave procedural impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process.
The tribunal observed that the charges were vague and indefinite, containing omnibus allegations without material particulars or even a list of witnesses. It further noted that the basis of the charge memorandum formed the substratum of the criminal proceedings pending before the Bombay HC.
The CAT also took note of Mr Wankhede’s 'exceptional career profile' and the accolades he had received during service.
It concluded that the decision to proceed against him reflected a predetermined mindset, non-application of mind and overzealous alacrity, suggesting that authorities were bent upon penalising him irrespective of the merits.
The tribunal had further observed that though the Bombay HC in May 2023 had restrained the CBI from acting further against Mr Wankhede, the Centre went ahead and issued the charge memorandum.
Challenging the CAT order, the Union government argued before the Delhi HC that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering at the stage of issuance of charges.
It was contended that courts and tribunals should ordinarily not quash charge memoranda unless they are ex facie without jurisdiction or patently illegal.
The government also objected to the tribunal’s findings attributing malice and motive to the government’s actions. Counsel for the government submitted that the charges were not vague but clearly spelt out, referring to specific dates, time, persons involved and case references, as admitted by Mr Wankhede in his own pleadings before the Bombay HC.
The government maintained that there was no mala fide intent in proceeding against the officer and that the disciplinary action was initiated after alleged misconduct came to light.
By allowing the government’s petition and setting aside the CAT order, the Delhi HC has effectively revived the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Wankhede. The ruling clears the way for the CBIC to continue with departmental action under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
