IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sameer Danyadev Wankhede – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. While invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT/the Tribunal’] on 19.01.2026 in O.A. No. 3258 of 2025 while quashing the following Articles of Charges at the initial stage:-
“Article of Charge 1
That Shri Sameer Wankhede, despite having been formally detached from the Narcotics Control Bureau on 02.01.2022 and hence with no mandate relating to investigation of Case No. 94/2021 (NCB), wilfully and deliberately sought sensitive and confidential information from Shri. Japan Babu, the then Departmental Legal Advisor (DLA) of NCB, on 02.06.2022, as evidenced by the telephonic transcript filed by the officer himself before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Annexure-12, Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 07.06.2023).
By the aforesaid acts of commission and omission, Shri Sameer Wankhede, Ex Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai, has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times; behaved in a way which is unbecomi
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma
M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. &Anr.
Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and Others
Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police And Ors
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank
State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Pandurang Jivaji Apte v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar
L.I.C. of India vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen
State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; delay alone does not invalidate proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated.
Disciplinary proceedings must be supported by adequate evidence, and a lack of procedural compliance can lead to judicial intervention.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of delay; the severity of allegations must also be considered.
Neighborhood disputes, especially involving family members, do not constitute official misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings initiated on such grounds without substantial evidence violate principl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.