New Delhi [India], January 23 : The Union Government on Friday approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the order dated January 19, 2026, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the charge memorandum issued against IRS officer Sameer Danyadev Wankhede.
Wankhede, the IRS Customs officer who exited the Narcotics Control Bureau under controversial circumstances following a botched probe in a high-profile drug case involving Shah Rukh Khan's son, had earlier secured relief from the Tribunal, which set aside the disciplinary charges framed against him by his administrative department, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
In its writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Centre has contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering at the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum, contrary to settled principles of service law, which ordinarily bar judicial intervention at the preliminary stage of disciplinary proceedings.
The CAT, in its impugned order, had held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Wankhede were legally unsustainable. The Tribunal concluded that the charge memorandum dated August 18, 2025, suffered from procedural impropriety and abuse of process, observing that the charges were founded on material that, in its view, could not form the basis of departmental action.
The Tribunal further noted that the material relied upon by the authorities was already the subject matter of proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court in connection with the Cordelia Cruise case. Holding that the issue was sub judice, the CAT found it improper for the authorities to proceed with departmental action on the same evidentiary footing and confirmed its earlier interim order staying the inquiry.
Challenging these findings, the Union of India has argued that the charge memorandum was not based on any barred or prohibited material, but on a call transcript dated June 2, 2022, which Wankhede himself placed on record before the Bombay High Court.
According to the Centre, the transcript prima facie disclosed attempts to access confidential information and influence an ongoing investigation after his formal de-attachment from the Narcotics Control Bureau.
The Centre has also submitted that the Tribunal erred in treating the pendency of criminal proceedings as a bar to disciplinary action, asserting that the interim protection granted by the Bombay High Court was limited to protection from arrest and did not stay either the investigation or departmental proceedings, which operate in distinct legal spheres.
The writ petition relies on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence to contend that a charge-sheet does not infringe any legal right of an officer and that interference at the threshold stage is warranted only in exceptional circumstances.
The matter was listed before the Delhi High Court on Friday. However, the court deferred the hearing to February 2, after counsel appearing for Wankhede submitted that the copy of the Centre's petition had been received late on Sunday night and sought time to respond.
The Union of India has sought the setting aside of the CAT's January 19 order and revival of the disciplinary proceedings, contending that the Tribunal's decision undermines established principles governing service discipline and judicial restraint.