A 2008-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, Sameer Wankhede, finally got a major relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Monday, which set aside the disciplinary charge framed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) against him. The CAT slammed the board for acting with malice and vendetta against Wankhede and restrained it from proceeding further on the basis of the charge memorandum
A Bench of Justice, Ranjit More and Rajinder Kashyap, took a strong exception to authorities for acting with malice and bias against Wankhede. The tribunal observed that the motive behind issuing the charge sheet was driven by the biased considerations, and the inquiry would be a mere farcical show. The tribunal made a damning indictment, saying it had to interfere to avoid further harassment and humiliation of the officer.
The CAT went on to charge the CBIC with trying to stall the promotion of Wankhede.
The tribunal further said that it was inclined to impose costs on CBIC but was refraining from doing so with the hope that the CBIC would mend its ways.
Wankhede served as Mumbai Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau between 2020 and January 2022, during which the NCB registered the Cordelia Cruise drug case involving Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan.
Later, allegations were leveled regarding the procedural lapses in the investigation, following which a Special Enquiry Team (SET) had been constituted by the NCB. The SET submitted its report in June 2022.
Wankhede then challenged the SET report before CAT, contending that the officer heading the inquiry had himself supervised the investigation in the Cordelia cruise case.
The CAT in August 2023 accepted this contention, saying that the SET report was only a preliminary enquiry. The CAT’s position was upheld by the Delhi High Court, which clarified that the findings of a preliminary enquiry cannot be used to indict an employee in disciplinary proceedings.
Meanwhile, in May 2023, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR against Wankhede. The FIR was based on the same material that formed part of the SET report. Wankhede then approached the Bombay High Court. The High Court granted him interim protection from coercive action.
But despite these judicial directions, CBIC issued a charge memorandum on August 18, 2025, alleging that Wankhede, after being transferred out of NCB, sought confidential information from NCB’s legal advisor and attempted to influence the course of the investigation.
Wankhede then challenged the CBIC’s charge before the CAT, in which this CAT’s judgment came on Monday.


















