'Malice In Law, Vendetta': CAT Quashes Charge Memo Against Sameer Wankhede, Faults CBIC For Proceeding Despite Interim Order
In a significant and strongly worded order, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, on Monday quashed and set aside the charge memorandum issued to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede, holding that the departmental action was vitiated by grave procedural impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process.
It added that the action was not a bona fide exercise of power but an act of "retaliation" and "personal vendetta". It added that the inquiry against him would be a "mere farcical show", the conclusion of which is already well known. Thus, it granted him relief to avoid "further harassment and humiliation".
The Tribunal also made strong observations against the Union and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), noting that they had acted in "wilful disobedience" and gross disregard of the Tribunal's earlier interim directions.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member A), in an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Bench noted that Wankhede had filed a Contempt Petition against the department for failing to implement a previous promotion order. Significantly, on July 15, 2025, the Tribunal had summoned the Chairman of the CBIC personally for non-compliance.
The Respondents (Union of India/CBIC) challenged the CAT's summoning order before the Delhi High Court and while the HC reserved judgment in the matter, the Respondents issued the impugned Charge Memorandum on August 18, 2025.
The Tribunal observed: "The chain of events unmistakeably demonstrates that the impugned Charge Memorandum bears no real nexus with the purported allegations but appears to be retaliation of respondents...Such conduct is ex facie demonstrative of malice in law and personal vendetta and colourable exercise of power".
For context, in his petition before the tribunal, Applicant-Wankhede had sought quashing of the charge memorandum issued to him and a restraint on the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned departmental proceedings
Case in brief
Wankhede is currently posted as an Additional Commissioner under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Prior to this, he served as the Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai.
It was submitted that the applicant has been in government service for the past 18 years and holds an "exceptional career profile."
Wankhede contended that the present departmental proceedings stem from the same set of allegations that form the basis of a criminal case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the Cordelia Cruise case.
According to him, the CBI case was based on a Special Enquiry Team (SET) report, even though the enquiry and the findings in the SET report were held by the courts to be vitiated by the inclusion of Mr Gyaneshwar Singh on the SET, despite his supervisory role.
For context, the impugned Charge Memorandum of August 18, 2025, was framed relying on a call transcript between Wankhede and a former Deputy Legal Advisor (DLA), which Wankhede himself had placed before the Bombay High Court in his defence.
The Respondents argued this constituted a "stand-alone" misconduct of attempting to influence the investigation after being de-attached from the NCB.
Tribunal's observations
However, the Tribunal noted that proceeding on this material, while the matter is sub judice, would compel the Applicant to disclose his defence, which would cause him prejudice.
Wankhede argued that the impugned charge memorandum was arbitrary and illegal and was issued in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
It was submitted that the respondents acted mechanically, without application of mind and without any fresh, cogent or admissible material and due to this, he was deprived of equal treatment and protection under the law.
In deciding the case, the CAT noted Wankhede's "exceptional career profile" and recorded that he had received several accolades during his service.
The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashok Kacker to hold that judicial review at the stage of a charge-sheet is permissible where foundational legal defects go to the root of the matter.
The CAT further observed that it had earlier stayed further action pursuant to two letters dated 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025. However, despite the subsisting stay, the respondents proceeded to initiate major penalty proceedings and issued the impugned charge memorandum against the applicant. It noted:
“This action on the part of the respondents is full of highhandedness and taken in a tearing hurry with the intentions to somehow or other, to fix the applicant. Such an action by the respondents, who are required to uphold the rule of law and provide a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to place his case, is not acceptable and is held to be a harassment and humiliation of a public officer. The motive involved in the issuance of the charge sheet is driven by the above biased considerations, and the inquiry would be a mere farcical show, the conclusion of which is already well known. Hence, we interfere at this stage itself to avoid further harassment and humiliation of the applicant”
The CAT held that the respondents' decision to proceed with the impugned departmental action was vitiated by grave procedural impropriety, malice in law, and abuse of process. It held:
“The deliberate issuance of the impugned Charge Memorandum in the teeth of the subsisting interim direction of this Tribunal constitutes wilful disobedience and gross contempt amounting to conscious interference with the due course of justice and fair play and direct affront to the authenticity and sanctity of the Order of this Tribunal. The chain of events unmistakeably demonstrates that the impugned Charge Memorandum bears no real nexus with the purported allegations but appears to be retaliation of respondents arising out of a number of decisions in the matters of the applicant and also is looked as an endeavour to stall the promotion of the applicant. Such conduct is ex facie demonstrative of malice in law and personal vendatta and colourable exercise of power.”
The Tribunal further held that the charge memorandum was patently illegal and was void ab initio for violating Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Bench noted that the charge sheet contained a 'NIL' list of witnesses.
Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment in Union of India v. Shameem Akhtar, the Tribunal noted that a charge sheet not supported by any list of witnesses or evidentiary foundation is unsustainable in law.
It was observed that the manner in which the proceedings were initiated reflected a predetermined mindset, non-application of mind and an overzealous alacrity, suggesting that the respondents were bent upon penalising the applicant irrespective of the merits of the case.
In view of the above, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the Charge Memorandum and directed grant of all consequential benefits.
The Tribunal, however, refrained from imposing high costs on the respondents as it noted that it hoped they would “mend their ways” and ensure that the administrative mechanism functions in accordance with the rule of law.
Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Number: O.A. No. 3258 of 2025.
Appearances: Mr Ajesh Luthra, Mr Jatin Parashar, and Ms Meenu Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Mr Ravi Prakash, along with Mr Hanu Bhaskar, Ms Astu Khandelwal, and Mr Yasharth, appeared for the respondents.