SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 628

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjit More, Chairman, RajinderKashyap, Member (A)
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.3258 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ajesh Luthra with Shri Jatin Parashar and Ms. Meenu Sharma
For the Respondents:Shri Ravi Prakash, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Hanu Bhaskar, Ms. Astu Khandelwal and Mr. Yasharth

Charge memorandum quashed at issuance stage for lacking witness list, violating prior judicial stay, using sub-judice material prejudicing criminal defence, and evidencing malice/retaliation amid litigation.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 3(1)(xviii), 3(1)(xxi); Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(2), (3), (4) - Charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings - Quashed where issued in violation of prior judicial stay on related inquiry communications, lacking list of witnesses despite documents annexed (rendering charges unprovable), based on material sub-judice in parallel criminal proceedings, timed amid contempt/promotion litigation indicating retaliation, and evidencing non-application of mind, malice, and procedural infirmity. Tribunal interferes at charge-sheet stage exceptionally for patent illegality, highhandedness, and abuse of process frustrating judicial orders. (Paras 12, 18, 20)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review at charge-sheet stage - Ordinarily impermissible unless lack of jurisdiction, vagueness without material particulars/witnesses, violation of natural justice, overreaching prior stays, or mala fides evident from sequence evincing vendetta; proceedings deferred if prejudice defence in pending criminal case on identical facts. (Paras 10, 19)

Facts of the case:
IRS officer challenged charge memorandum alleging post-detachment extraction of confidential information and influencing investigation via call transcript filed by him in ongoing criminal writ before High Court (with continuing interim protection). Memorandum issued despite Tribunal's stay on prior inquiry letters seeking his presence, amid promotion contempt proceedings; charges lacked witness list despite documents, violated CCS(CCA) Rule 14(3)(ii)(b), (4).

Findings of Court:
Impugned charge memorandum void ab initio for procedural defects, defiance of stay, vagueness, sub-judice material prejudice, and retaliatory timing; respondents' haste and highhandedness frustrated judicial process.

Issues: Validity of charge memorandum breaching prior stay, lacking witnesses/documents proof, using sub-judice transcript, amid litigation retaliation; permissibility of interference pre-inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Charge-sheet quashable exceptionally for foundational defects like absent witness list (mandatory under Rule 14), stay violation, identical facts prejudice in criminal case, evident malice from sequence; upholds natural justice, prevents abuse as discipline weaponized for harassment.

Result: Original Application allowed; charge memorandum quashed with consequential benefits.

Table of Content
1. applicant's distinguished service record and achievements (Para 1 , 2)
2. impugned charge memo and tribunal stay (Para 4)
3. applicant's arguments on mala fides and natural justice (Para 6)
4. respondents' defence on independent misconduct charges (Para 7)
5. judicial restraint on charge sheet interference (Para 9 , 10)
6. overreaching tribunal stay constitutes abuse of process (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
7. charge memo invalid without witness list (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. quashing charge memo for procedural violations (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

O R D E R Hon’ble Mr. RajinderKashyap, Member (A):

By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following prayers:-

"a) Quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memorandum No.

30/2025 dated 18.08.2025 issued to the Applicant;

b) Restrain the Respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 18.08.2025 during the pendency of the present Original Application;

c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The applicant is an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) Officer and currently posted as Additional Commissioner under the Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department. Prior to the present posting, he was the Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The applicant, an IRS Officer, is in the Government service since past 18 years and throughout the tenure of his service, he has been instrumental in curbing the menace of illegal activities and exposing and catching hold of criminals involved in smuggling and illegal procurement and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The applicant claims that he had received many awards and accolades while serving various departments, some of them are as under:

Sl. Details of Certificate/Commendations/

Year Given by No. Appreciations/Medals Commendable performance in surpassing the Commissioner of

1 2013 original revenue target by a comfortable margin Customs, CSI and realizing 727 crores against the target of Rs. Airport, Mumbai

2.1 The applicant during his tenure as Zonal Director of the Narcotic Control Bureau busted various drug rackets and gangs who were operating the drug-selling rackets throughout the region of Maharashtra and Goa. He had meticulously busted the menace of narcotic drugs and honestly carried out his duties to curb the abuse of narcotic drugs. He has also solved various high profile cases wherein influential persons were involved for the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The continuous onslaught by the applicant on the drug traffickers and gangs involved in the procurement of drugs has led to the applicant, being unfairly targeted, by the political bosses of the said drug mafia.

2.2 The applicant's hard work in due performance of his duties had been duly recognized and he had been conferred with honours. Thus he had not only meticulously performed his duties as an honest officer, but the same has also been recognized and conferred honours for the same from time to time.

2.3 The applicant has served in various National Agencies, like IB, NIA, DRI, Customs and NCB, which was on loan basis in August 2020 and had supervised many drugs related cases including case of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput and was awarded by the Hon'ble Union Home Minister for excellence in investigation in August 2021. In February, 2021, NCB, Mumbai had arrested one Shri Sameer Khan in '189 kg Ganja' case. Shri Sameer Khan was the son- in-law of ex-Cabinet Minister of Maharashtra and was released on bail in September, 2021. Immediately after that, Shri Aryan Khan, son of the actor Shri Shahrukh Khan, was arrested in the notorious Cordelia Cruzdrug bust along with 19 others. Shri Nawab Malik then grabbed the opportunity to take revenge and started defaming, putting false

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top