Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.

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 unbecoming of a Government servant; failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty; failed to refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices; failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of hi s abilities and has thereby contravened Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 3(1)(xviii) and 3(1)(xxi) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge 2

That Shri Sameer Wankhede obtained an assurance from DLA of NCB so as to steer the investigation of NCB case no. 94/2021 towards a predetermined outcome for ulterior motive. The extract of transcript of recorded conversation reveals that DLA refers to a prior ??? (gada) or promise - "???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????"- that suggests some assurance having been sought earlier.

This prior assurance in any criminal investigation raises serious doubts about its fairness and integrity. Shri Sameer Wankhede, being the supervisory officer, was expected to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner to unearth the truth. By obtaining assurance from DIA towards a premeditated outcome, he appears to have failed to maintain absolute integrity.

By the aforesaid acts of commission and omission, Shri Sameer Wankhede, Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai, has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times; behaved in a way which is unbecoming of a Government servant; failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty; failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities and has thereby contravened Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(xxi) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

It is not in dispute that the impugned charge memorandum premised upon very material and evidence which the applicant himself had placed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.9645/2023, in which an interim stay has already been granted in his favour. Thus, the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

In the above circumstances, we issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondents.

By way of interim measure, we direct the respondents not