Delhi High Court Upholds Order Directing Consideration Of IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede’s Case Of Promotion To Additional Commissioner Post
|The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Delhi High Court has upheld an Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in favour of Indian Revenue Service Officer Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, directing the consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner. The High Court noted that neither a charge-sheet in the criminal case had been filed nor disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the Officer yet.
The petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain stated, “Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that there are grave allegations against the respondent for which an FIR and an ECIR have been registered, and CVC on earlier occasion has also advised initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the fact remains that neither a charge-sheet in the criminal cases has been filed, nor disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge sheet have been initiated so far.”
CGSC Ashish K. Dixit represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent had filed the application contending that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which had been constituted for considering the case of the eligible adhoc officers for regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, had kept the case of the respondent in a sealed cover contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.Jankiraman & Ors. (1991).
The Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, had accepted the said challenge and asked the Official Respondents to open the sealed cover pertaining to the applicant's promotion and in the event his name was recommended by UPSC, he would be granted promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner. The Respondents were further directed to place the applicant's name at an appropriate position in the final seniority list of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Indirect Taxes.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that neither a charge-sheet in the criminal cases was filed, nor were disciplinary proceedings initiated. Moreover, there was no admission of guilt on the part of the respondent, and it was not the case of the petitioners that an investigation had been completed by the CBI or the ED, resulting in a charge-sheet being filed against the respondent. As far as the Departmental Proceedings were concerned, the petitioners themselves had advised CVC not to proceed further with the same.
The Bench further mentioned that the Disciplinary Proceedings were yet to start against the respondent. The Bench also made it clear that in K.V. Jankiraman (supra), the employees therein had admitted to their guilt and were suspended, and had ven deposited the amount drawn by them by submitting alleged false Leave Travel Concessions claims using forged documents. However, in the case at hand, there was no admission of guilt on the part of the respondent.
Thus, finding no infirmity in the Impugned Order of the Tribunal, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
“The directions given by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order shall be complied with, within 4 weeks from the date of present Judgment”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Union of India v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7400-DB)
Appearance
Petitioners: CGSC Ashish K. Dixit, Advocates Shivam Tiwari, Umar Hashmi, Urmila Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog, Arvind Nayar, T.Singhdev, Nikhil Palli, Jatin Prashar, Niyati Razdan, Bhavya Sharma, Vaidushya Parth, Shubham, Anum Hussain, Manisha, Ankita