SET evidence not admissible in Sameer Wankhede's department inquiry, clarifies Delhi HC  

A division bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Shalinder Kaur said: "The writ petition along with all accompanying applications is disposed of as not pressed by clarifying that the evidence recorded in the SET will not be relied upon in the department enquiry which may be held against the petitioner as per the law."

Wankhede's counsels, upon instruction, opted not to pursue the plea further. Instead, they urged the court to clarify that the SET findings would not be utilised in the upcoming department inquiry against Wankhede.

Wankhede's plea had contested a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order from August 21 last year in so far as it refused to quash the findings of the SET.

Wankhede had filed an application seeking the quashing of a report dated June 16, 2022, prepared by the SET led by Narcotics Control Bureau Deputy Director General, Gyaneshwar Singh.

During this tenure, Wankhede received some information on the basis of which a raid was conducted at the Cordelia Cruise. 

Post this, certain allegations were raised against Wankhede regarding the "conduct of the raid/investigation". To probe these allegations, an SET was formed within the NCB, which subsequently submitted its report, along with the related documents, to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Wankhede had argued that Gyaneshwar Singh, who was the Chairman of the SET, was actively involved in supervising the investigation of the above-mentioned 'crime', and that it was a violation of the principles of natural justice for Singh to head the SET investigating his 'own case'.

Upon a thorough examination of the case and based on WhatsApp evidence, the CAT bench, consisting of Chairman Justice Ranjit More and Member (A) Anand Mathur, had also concluded that Gyaneshwar Singh, being actively involved in the investigation, could not have been a part of the SET.

Consequently, the tribunal directed the relevant authorities to grant a personal hearing to Wankhede before any action was taken, ensuring that any decision was communicated with a reasoned and clear order.

Recently, the high court had set aside the order issued by the CAT regarding the procedure for taking action against Wankhede.

Wankhede, an IRS officer of the 2008 batch, is currently serving as an Additional Commissioner in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.

The court had partially allowed the Central government's appeal against the order of the CAT, in favour of Wankhede, a former NCB Mumbai Zone Director, against whom certain allegations were levelled regarding the "conduct of the raid/investigation" in the Cordelua Cruise drugs case.

The high court had concurred with the Central government's argument that the directive to provide a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order before initiating any action against Wankhede contradicted the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Setting aside this aspect of the CAT's order, the high court, however, had clarified that its decision does not hinder Wankhede's ability to challenge the order, if he wishes to do so.

The Centre had contested the CAT's order, asserting that it was erroneous as the Tribunal failed to recognise that the CCS (CCA) Rules do not mandate providing a personal hearing to a delinquent employee before issuing a charge sheet. 

Meanwhile, Wankhede's counsel argued that his client himself was aggrieved by CAT’s decision. 

The Tribunal had noted Wankhede's concerns regarding Singh's involvement in issuing directions during the investigation, despite being appointed as the Chairman of the SET.

Recently, Wankhede filed a contempt plea against Singh, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's order. A single-judge bench, however, dismissed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable, but granted Wankhede the liberty to seek redressal of his grievances through the CAT.