New Delhi, February 27 The Delhi High Court on Friday gave its approval for the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the 2021 Cordelia cruise drugs case.
A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan allowed the Centre's petition and overturned an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had quashed the disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede in the matter.
"This petition is allowed," said the bench while pronouncing the verdict.
The central government challenged the CAT order passed on January 19, quashing the 'Charge Memorandum' issued to Wankhede on August 18, 2025, by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Wankhede, a 2008 batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, made headlines for allegedly demanding Rs 25 crore from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan's family by threatening to implicate his son Aryan Khan in the Cordelia cruise drug bust case during his tenure in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai, in 2021.
Wankhede had filed an application before the CAT, challenging the disciplinary inquiry against him by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for allegedly seeking confidential information related to the probe from NCB's legal department after he was relieved from the agency.
It was also alleged that he sought an "assurance" from the NCB's legal officer to "steer the investigation" in the probe.
In the judgment, the court observed that the interference by the CAT at this "premature stage" of proceedings was "unwarranted".
It said the charges were founded entirely upon documentary evidence placed on record by Wankhede himself, and the 'Charge Memorandum' could not be quashed at the threshold merely on the ground that it was not accompanied by a list of witnesses.
Setting aside the CAT order, the court asked Wankhede to exhaust his internal remedies by submitting a reply before the disciplinary authority.
The court, in the judgement, also observed that the CAT recorded "sweeping observations" on the departmental action being vitiated by grave procedural impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process, without providing sufficient rationale behind them.
It also rejected CAT's view that there was "highhandedness" by the authorities and the charges were vague and indefinite, saying the "Articles of Charge" were "specific" in nature.
"The transcript (of conversation produced by the respondent with then NCB's departmental legal advisor) revealed the substance of the charges against the respondent, namely that the respondent attempted to steer the investigation in the pending case in a particular direction, sought to extract information, and endeavoured to exert influence based on a 'promise'," the court noted.
"Therefore, the Articles of Charges did not warrant to be styled as vague and indefinite, containing bald omnibus charges," it held.
The court added that the issuance of the Charge Memorandum was neither a punishment nor did it give rise to a cause to action enforceable in a court of law, as the employer had merely shown its intention to have a response from Wankhede.
On January 12, the high court refused to interfere with an order of the CAT staying the disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede. It had, however, asked the CAT to make "sincere efforts" to decide the main matter on January 14 or within the next 10 days.