Delhi HC holds that SET evidence can’t be used against Wankhede

In a relief for Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former Mumbai zonal director of the NCB Sameer Wankhede, the Delhi high court has ordered that the evidence recorded by the SET should not be relied upon in any departmental enquiry that might be held against him

MUMBAI: In a relief for Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former Mumbai zonal director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede, the Delhi high court has ordered that the evidence recorded by the Special Enquiry Team (SET) should not be relied upon in any departmental enquiry that might be held against him. The SET is an internal vigilance inquiry set up by the NCB under its then deputy director-general (northern region) Gyaneshwar Singh to examine alleged misconduct by the Wankhede-led team probing the October 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case, in which Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan was allegedly implicated.

Mumbai: Former NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede at CBI office for questioning in a bribery case in connection with Aryan Khan's arrest, in Mumbai, Saturday, May 20, 2023. (PTI Photo)(PTI05_20_2023_000205A) (PTI)

Wankhede had earlier moved the high court to contest an order dated August 21, 2023, of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)’s principal bench in Delhi, which did not quash the findings of the SET. He subsequently submitted to the high court that instead of pressing with the writ petition, he would be satisfied if the court were to clarify that the SET findings would not be used in the departmental enquiry proposed to be held against him. Acting on Wankhede’s request, the division bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Shalinder Kaur on Tuesday clarified that the findings of a preliminary enquiry cannot be used for indicting an employee in a departmental enquiry.

The high court further said that CAT had already clarified this aspect in its August 2023 order. The relevant paragraph, as referred to in the high court’s order, had said that Singh, being actively involved in the investigation of the Cordelia drug bust case, should not have been part of the SET, which was constituted to hold an enquiry into alleged procedural lapses on the part of officials during the seizure and follow-up action in connection with the case.

While taking note of the arguments of the respondents that the impugned SET report was preliminary in nature and the respondents had to take an independent decision regarding the action against Wankhede, the CAT order had further said, “We are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by directing the respondents number 1 to 5 to grant personal hearing to the applicant before initiating any action against him on the basis of the impugned SET report and the decision so taken shall be communicated to him by passing a reasoned and speaking order.” The CAT order listed five respondents: the finance ministry, the NCB, the MHA, Gyaneshwar Singh, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

The high court, therefore, in its order, clarified that the “evidence recorded in SET will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry which may be held against the petitioner (Wankhede) as per law” and disposed of his writ petition as “not pressed”.

When HT contacted Wankhede about the high court order, he said, ‘Satyamev Jayate (Truth Always Prevails)’. I have full faith in the Indian judiciary. I cannot say anything more.”

A legal aide of Wankhede, when contacted, told HT, “The government accepted the CAT finding that Gyaneshwar Singh should not have been the SET chairman when he himself was supervising the Cordelia case. The high court also agreed to this. Most importantly, the court said that the evidence collected by the SET and Gyaneshwar Singh could not be used against Wankhede; thus, the SET headed by Singh stands vitiated.”

In September last year, Wankhede had approached the Bombay high court, referring to the August 21 CAT order in support of his May 2023 petition seeking quashing of the May 2023 FIR registered by the CBI against him and others with respect to alleged irregularities associated with the Cordelia case probe, and contended that the entire CBI FIR, including the sanction, was based on the SET report, which was held to be unsustainable, having been conducted by a person who could not be a judge in his own case. On May 19 last year, the high court granted interim protection to Wankhede from any coercive action by the CBI, which was subsequently extended after he offered to appear before the agency’s investigating officer and cooperate with the probe.

In its FIR registered on May 11 last year, based on a complaint from the NCB that included the SET’s findings, the CBI had accused Wankhede and a few others, including then NCB officials, of conspiring to extort ₹25 crore from Shah Rukh Khan in exchange for not implicating his son, Aryan, in the drug bust case. On October 3, 2021, Aryan Khan was arrested by the NCB, following the alleged drug seizure on board the Cordelia cruise ship off the Mumbai coast. As the agency failed to substantiate charges against Aryan, from whom no seizure of any narcotic was made nor was he tested for consumption, he was granted bail by the Bombay high court three weeks later.

The NCB had set up the SET after certain allegations surfaced against Wankhede and the probe team in the manner the case search/ investigation had been conducted. Wankhede had in November 2022 challenged the SET’s findings / report of June 2022 before the CAT. The SET’s preliminary report was forwarded by the NCB to the competent authority, the ministry of home affairs (MHA).