Sameer Wankhede promotion: Delhi HC imposes ₹20K cost on Centre for concealing facts
The bench stated that a clear message must be conveyed to the concerned authorities that such practices in service matters cannot be countenanced..
The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected, with ₹20,000 costs, Centre’s petition seeking a review of its earlier order directing it to promote Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede to the post of Joint Commissioner (JC) of Customs and Indirect Taxes, if he is found eligible.
This was after Centre’s lawyer Ashish Dixit urged the bench of justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain to set aside its August 28 order.
In its order, the court had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision directing the Centre to open the sealed cover related to Wankhede’s promotion and, if his name is recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) , grant him the promotion with retrospective effect from January 2021.
The court had concluded that as of date, Centre had failed to make out a case for keeping the promotion in a sealed cover since there was neither a charge sheet, pending disciplinary proceeding, nor a criminal case.
Dixit argued that before the August 28 order, the competent authority had issued a charge memorandum and initiated regular departmental proceedings against Wankhede on August 18, thereby legitimately invoking the “sealed cover” procedure.
Also Read: Suit against SRK, Gauri over series not maintainable in Delhi: HC to Wankhede
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: Suit against SRK, Gauri over series not maintainable in Delhi: HC to Wankhede
{{/usCountry}}He further contended that the court’s ruling was based on the incorrect factual assumption that no charge memo or chargesheet had been issued, and therefore, a review was justified on the grounds of this demonstrable error.
{{/usCountry}}He further contended that the court’s ruling was based on the incorrect factual assumption that no charge memo or chargesheet had been issued, and therefore, a review was justified on the grounds of this demonstrable error.
{{/usCountry}}However, Wankhede’s lawyer T Singhdev, urged the court to dismiss the petition, asserting that the same was a tactic to harass his client. Singhdev highlighted that although the promotion order was issued in January 2021, the Centre delayed its implementation for several months and only challenged the CAT’s directive after his client initiated contempt proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}However, Wankhede’s lawyer T Singhdev, urged the court to dismiss the petition, asserting that the same was a tactic to harass his client. Singhdev highlighted that although the promotion order was issued in January 2021, the Centre delayed its implementation for several months and only challenged the CAT’s directive after his client initiated contempt proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}He further noted that while the High Court had reserved its verdict on the Centre’s petition against the CAT order on July 29, the Centre went on to issue a chargesheet against his client on August 18, yet failed to inform the court of this development before the judgment was delivered on August 28. Singhdev also pointed out that in its review petition, the Centre concealed the fact that the CAT, through its order dated August 27, had restrained it from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry against Wankhede.
{{/usCountry}}He further noted that while the High Court had reserved its verdict on the Centre’s petition against the CAT order on July 29, the Centre went on to issue a chargesheet against his client on August 18, yet failed to inform the court of this development before the judgment was delivered on August 28. Singhdev also pointed out that in its review petition, the Centre concealed the fact that the CAT, through its order dated August 27, had restrained it from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry against Wankhede.
{{/usCountry}}Considering the contentions, the court dismissed the petition and strongly criticised the Centre for concealing material facts.
“We’ve considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. Admittedly, as on the date of DPC & date of order passed by the tribunal on 17.12.2024, as affirmed by us, the cause for considering the recommendations of DPC in a sealed cover had not been met. In fact they were also not met on 29/7 when we had reserved our judgment in the writ,” the court said in its order.
It added, “However, we strongly deprecate the petitioner from concealing from this court the order dated 27/08/2025 wherein the petitioner has been restrained from proceeding with the further departmental inquiry against the respondent. We would expect that the petitioner, being the government, as a state, would disclose all facts truthfully before us while filing the writ. For the above-mentioned petition, we dismiss the petition with costs of ₹20,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocate Welfare Fund.”
Wankhede had made headlines in 2021 after he arrested actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan, while serving as the zonal director of the Mumbai Narcotics Control Bureau. However, later, he came under scrutiny of multiple agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in July 2023, for allegedly demanding a ₹25 crore bribe from Shah Rukh Khan in exchange for not implicating Aryan Khan in the case.
