Delhi High Court Keeps Decision Reserved on Centre’s Challenge in Sameer Wankhede Disciplinary Case

New Delhi | Feb 2, 2026 The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by the Centre against an order that had quashed disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in connection with the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case. A bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan heard detailed arguments from both sides before deciding to keep the matter reserved for judgment. The Centre has challenged a January 19 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had set aside the ‘Charge Memorandum’ issued to Wankhede on August 18, 2025, by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The disciplinary action was linked to allegations that Wankhede, after being relieved from the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), tried to access confidential information related to the high-profile drug case and influence the investigation. Sameer Wankhede, a 2008-batch Indian Revenue Service officer, came into the national spotlight during his tenure with the NCB in Mumbai in 2021. He was accused of allegedly demanding ₹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. Wankhede later approached the CAT, challenging the departmental inquiry initiated by the CBIC, calling it unfair and motivated. During the hearing, the Centre’s lawyer argued that the CAT wrongly termed the disciplinary proceedings as “malafide”, calling it a “bald assertion” unsupported by facts. He said the inquiry was based on a call transcript dated June 2, 2022, which Wankhede himself had placed on record before the Bombay High Court. According to the Centre, the transcript showed that despite being formally detached from the NCB, Wankhede tried to unauthorisedly access official and confidential information and influence the probe. The Centre also claimed there were “specific” charges against him and that any procedural lapses could have been corrected instead of quashing the proceedings entirely. Wankhede’s counsel, however, strongly defended the CAT’s order, stating that the disciplinary action was meant to harass his client. He pointed out that no action had been taken against the NCB legal officer from whom Wankhede allegedly sought an “assurance” to “steer the investigation”. Arguing before the court, he said, “There is ex facie malafide in the manner in which you have chargesheeted him. The order deserves to be upheld.” The high court had earlier, on January 12, declined to interfere with the CAT’s interim order staying the proceedings but had asked the tribunal to make “sincere efforts” to decide the main case within a short time frame. Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Centre’s Plea in Sameer Wankhede Disciplinary Case The Delhi High Court on Monday kept its decision reserved on the Centre’s plea challenging the relief given to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case. The court heard arguments from both the Centre and Wankhede before reserving its verdict on the matter. The Centre has questioned the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order that had quashed the ‘Charge Memorandum’ issued to Wankhede by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The disciplinary case relates to allegations that Wankhede tried to access confidential information and influence the investigation even after he was relieved from the Narcotics Control Bureau. Arguing for the Centre, the government’s lawyer said the CAT’s finding that the proceedings were “malafide” was a “bald assertion”. He told the court that the inquiry was based on a call transcript dated June 2, 2022, submitted by Wankhede himself earlier, and claimed it showed attempts to unauthorisedly access official information and affect the probe. The Centre also said there were “specific” charges and that any procedural issues could have been corrected. Wankhede’s lawyer opposed the Centre’s plea and said the disciplinary action was meant to harass his client. He argued that no action was taken against the NCB legal officer who allegedly gave an “assurance” to “steer the investigation”. Stating his stand clearly, he told the court, “There is ex facie malafide in the manner in which you have chargesheeted him. The order deserves to be upheld.”