Delhi High Court Fines Central Government Rs 20,000 for Concealing Facts in IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede's Promotion Case

Sameer Wankhede, a 2008 batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, has been at the center of a legal dispute regarding his promotion.

The Delhi High Court on Friday imposed a Rs 20,000 fine on the central government for concealing critical facts in its review petition related to Wankhede's promotion case. The bench, comprising justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, strongly criticized the government's conduct and emphasized the expectation that the Centre should truthfully disclose all relevant facts in its pleadings.

The government was seeking a review of the high court's August 28 order, which had directed authorities to check the UPSC's recommendation regarding Wankhede's promotion and to promote him if such a recommendation existed.

Wankhede gained significant media attention during his tenure with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai in 2021, when he allegedly demanded Rs 25 crore from Shah Rukh Khan's family by threatening to implicate the actor's son Aryan Khan in the Cordelia cruise drug bust case.

In its earlier verdict, the high court had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's December 2024 ruling that directed the government to open the sealed cover containing information about Wankhede's promotion. The tribunal had ordered that if his name was recommended by the UPSC, he should be promoted to the post of additional commissioner retroactively from January 1, 2021.

The government had challenged this ruling in the high court, claiming that Wankhede's case was placed in a sealed cover due to pending cases against him.

During Friday's hearing, government counsel Ashish Dixit argued that before the August 28 order, the competent authority had issued a charge memorandum and initiated departmental proceedings against Wankhede on August 18, thereby justifying the "sealed cover" procedure. He claimed the court's decision was based on an incorrect factual assumption that no charge memo had been issued.

Wankhede's lawyer, T Singhdev, opposed the petition, describing it as harassment tactics. He pointed out that although the promotion order was issued in January 2021, the Centre delayed implementation for months and only challenged the CAT decision after Wankhede initiated contempt proceedings.

Singhdev further revealed that while the high court had reserved its verdict on July 29 on the Centre's petition against the CAT order, the government issued a charge sheet against Wankhede on August 18 without informing the court before the judgment was delivered on August 28.

Moreover, he argued that in its review petition, the Centre concealed the fact that the CAT had restrained it from proceeding with the departmental inquiry against Wankhede through an order dated August 27.

After considering these submissions, the bench dismissed the review petition while criticizing the government for concealing material facts. The court noted, "Admittedly, as on the date of departmental promotion committee (DPC) and date of order passed by the tribunal on December 17, 2024, as affirmed by us, the cause for considering the recommendations of DPC in a sealed cover had not been met."

The court added, "We strongly deprecate the petitioner from concealing from this court the order dated August 27, 2025 wherein the petitioner has been restrained from proceeding with the further departmental inquiry against the respondent."

The bench concluded by stating, "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 Rs 20,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocate Welfare Fund."

The government had initially challenged the CAT order by claiming there were serious allegations against Wankhede, including an FIR and an ECIR registered against him, and that the CVC had previously advised initiating disciplinary proceedings.