Supreme Court Declines To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sameer Wankhede, Gives Fresh Opportunity To Respond To Chargesheet

The Supreme Court recently declined to quash disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case, but directed that he be given an opportunity to respond to the chargesheet before any further steps are taken in the inquiry.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said it was not inclined to quash the proceedings, but held that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on March 7, 2026 had taken place without giving Wankhede sufficient opportunity to file his reply to the chargesheet.

The Court permitted Wankhede to file his reply within two weeks and directed the authorities to take a fresh decision on whether to appoint an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer within two weeks thereafter.

“While we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer on 07.03.2026 is without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file reply to the chargesheet. For this reason, we permit the petitioner to represent himself and file a reply to the chargesheet within two weeks from today. The respondent(s) will take the decision after considering the reply of the petitioner whether or not to appoint an Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer within two weeks thereafter”, the Court held.

The case concerns disciplinary action against Wankhede on the allegation that, after being removed from the Narcotics Control Bureau probe into the Cordelia cruise case, he attempted to influence the investigation through a phone call with a former Deputy Legal Advisor. This allegation forms the basis of the charge memorandum dated August 18, 2025, which relies on the transcript of that call.

The Delhi High Court had set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order which had quashed the disciplinary action against Wankhede. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Wankhede, argued that no charge was made out in the chargesheet. He submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had earlier allowed Wankhede's claim and directed his promotion, but the order was neither challenged nor complied with, leading to a contempt petition. He highlighted that only after the chairman's presence was sought in contempt proceedings did the authorities challenge the CAT order.

Patwalia told the Court that the High Court had repeatedly questioned how promotion could be denied in the absence of a chargesheet. He said the chargesheet was issued in 2025, nearly three years after the events, even though the call transcript relied upon in the chargesheet had been available for two and a half years and had been considered by the High Court while granting interim relief. He alleged that the chargesheet was issued only to deny promotion to Wankhede.

Justice Narasimha observed that the matter was not a case where there was nothing at all against Wankhede and said the Court would interfere where required, but did not find it appropriate to quash the entire proceedings.

“It is not as if it's absolute clean slate where there is nothing at all. We have no hesitation in interfering when our conscience requires. It feels that it is not a situation where we need to interfere and then quash the entire thing”, he said.

He indicated that the Court would instead direct expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.

Patwalia opposed this, contending that such a direction would lead to immediate dismissal from service. He also argued that an inquiry officer had been appointed without waiting for Wankhede's reply, which denied him a fair opportunity. Patwalia repeatedly emphasised that there were no supporting documents or witnesses to establish any charge and pressed for quashing of the chargesheet.

The Court ultimately directed that the earlier appointment of the inquiry officer would not stand and that a fresh decision must be taken after giving Wankhede an opportunity to respond.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10451/2026

Case Title – Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Anr.