Delhi HC Upholds CAT Order to Promote IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede to Joint Commissioner

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) December 2024 order, directing the Centre to promote Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede to the post of Joint Commissioner (JC) of Customs and Indirect Taxes, provided he is found eligible by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).


Background: Wankhede’s Role in Aryan Khan Drug Case

Sameer Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, served as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai and gained national attention in October 2021 when he supervised the high-profile arrest of Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, in a drugs-on-cruise case.

However, in July 2023, Wankhede himself came under scrutiny after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated probes into allegations that he demanded a ₹25 crore bribe from Shah Rukh Khan in exchange for not implicating Aryan Khan in the case.


Sealed Cover Procedure and CAT’s Order

In March 2024, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered cases of officers eligible for promotion to JC. While Wankhede’s name was deliberated, his recommendation was kept in a sealed cover due to pending investigations.

In December 2024, CAT directed the Centre to open the sealed cover and, if Wankhede’s name was recommended by the UPSC, grant him promotion with effect from January 2021. The Centre, opposing this, moved the Delhi High Court.


Centre’s Argument Against Promotion

The Centre’s counsel, Ashish Dixit, argued that CAT overlooked the fact that several cases against Wankhede were still pending, including:

  1. A CBI investigation into allegations of forged caste certificates used by Wankhede to secure a government job.

  2. A complaint in July 2023 alleging Wankhede’s attempts to access confidential investigation records.

The Centre maintained that these ongoing investigations justified withholding his promotion.


Wankhede’s Defence

Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, representing Wankhede, countered that:

  • No charge sheet had been filed against him.

  • No disciplinary proceedings or criminal cases had been initiated.

  • The CBI case was still in the investigation stage, and a charge sheet was far from being filed.

  • The circumstances under which sealed cover procedure can be invoked (pending departmental proceedings, suspension, or criminal charge sheet) were not met in this case.


Delhi High Court’s Judgment

A bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the Centre’s petition, emphasizing that Wankhede’s promotion could not be withheld indefinitely without formal charges.

The Court observed:

  • No departmental proceedings had been initiated.

  • Wankhede had not been suspended.

  • Neither the CBI nor ED had filed a charge sheet.

  • The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) itself had advised against pursuing departmental action.

The Court stated:

“There is no admission of guilt on the part of the respondent, and investigations are still at a preliminary stage. There is no infirmity in the CAT order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

The High Court directed the Centre to comply with CAT’s order within a month and proceed with promotion if UPSC recommends his name.


Significance of the Verdict

This ruling reaffirms that sealed cover procedures cannot be misused to indefinitely delay promotions without substantial evidence or formal charges. The judgment underscores the principle of presumption of innocence for officers under investigation until proven guilty.

It also highlights judicial scrutiny over sealed cover practices, ensuring that administrative decisions adhere to constitutional fairness and natural justice.


Key Takeaways

  • Promotion Restored: Wankhede’s name must be reconsidered, and promotion granted if eligible.

  • No Formal Charges: Investigations by CBI and ED remain inconclusive.

  • Judicial Oversight: The court has set a precedent against arbitrary use of sealed cover procedures.

  • High-Profile Context: The case is closely followed due to Wankhede’s role in the Aryan Khan drugs case, one of India’s most publicized NCB operations.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

District Judges' Appointment and Service: Constitutional Framework and Contemporary Imperatives

Constitutional Provisions Governing Union Territories and Delhi: A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles 239 to 240

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores