Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on the Centre’s challenge to a CAT order quashing disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede.
The Centre said call transcripts show Wankhede tried to access confidential NCB information after leaving the agency, rejecting CAT’s “malafide” finding.
Wankhede termed the probe harassment, arguing selective action and urging the court to uphold the CAT order.
The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its ruling on a plea by the Centre contesting an order quashing disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case.
A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan heard the counsels for the Centre and Wankhede before reserving its ruling on the subject.
The 'Charge Memorandum' that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) sent to Wankhede on August 18, 2025, has been contested by the Centre in an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated January 19.
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.
After being fired from the NCB, Wankhede filed an original application before the CAT contesting the CBIC's disciplinary investigation against him for allegedly requesting confidential information about the investigation from the legal department.
Additionally, he allegedly asked the NCB's legal officer for an "assurance" to "steer the investigation" in the probe.
He said that a call transcript dated June 2, 2022, which Wankhede himself recorded in his appeal before the Bombay High Court, served as the basis for the disciplinary actions.
The attorney said that the transcript showed that Wankhede tried to get official and private material without authorisation and sway the investigation's outcome notwithstanding his official separation from the NCB.
He said that there were "specific" charges against Wankhede, in contrast to the CAT's judgement, and that the department ought to have been allowed to change its direction if there had been a procedural flaw.
Wankhede's lawyer, on the other side, defended the CAT's decision, saying the disciplinary proceedings were an attempt to harass his client.
He said no action has been initiated against the NCB lawyer from whom Wankhede allegedly obtained an "assurance" with respect to the drug bust case.
"There is ex facie malafide in the manner in which you have chargesheeted him. The order (of the CAT) deserves to be upheld," the lawyer submitted.
On January 12, the high court refused to interfere with the order of the CAT staying disciplinary proceedings against Wankhede.
It, however, asked the CAT to make “sincere efforts” to decide the main matter on January 14 or within the next 10 days
