The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has canceled the transfer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede from Mumbai to Chennai, calling the decision “arbitrary” and against the government’s own transfer rules.
Why Was Wankhede Transferred?
Sameer Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, became widely known in 2021 when he was serving as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai. He led the investigation into the high-profile drug case involving Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan. However, after allegations of bribery and misconduct in the investigation, he was removed from the case. The NCB later dropped all charges against Aryan Khan, citing a lack of evidence.
Following this controversy, Wankhede faced multiple inquiries, including a departmental probe. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also filed cases against him on charges of extortion and money laundering. After his removal from the NCB, Wankhede returned to his parent department, the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) in Mumbai.
In May 2022, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued an order transferring him to the Directorate General of Taxpayer Services (DGTS) in Chennai. However, Wankhede challenged this decision in the CAT.
What Did the Tribunal Say?
A bench of Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member) reviewed the case and ruled that the transfer was unfair. They found that the Department of Revenue had violated its own transfer policy. The Tribunal also noted that the department’s treatment of Wankhede appeared to be biased.
The government had argued that Wankhede had spent his entire career in Mumbai since 2010, justifying the transfer. However, the Tribunal clarified that during this time, Wankhede had been on deputation to multiple agencies, including the NCB, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Customs, and Central Excise. According to government rules, time spent on deputation should not be counted as part of a regular posting. The Tribunal calculated that Wankhede had spent 6 years and 8 months on deputation, which should be excluded from his tenure in Mumbai.
The ruling emphasized that while government officers must be prepared to serve anywhere in India, transfer policies should be applied fairly and transparently. The CAT stated that transfers can be overturned if they are found to be issued arbitrarily or with bad intent. It also pointed out that the transfer was not in line with the 2018 guidelines for IRS officers.
Despite ruling in Wankhede’s favor, the Tribunal decided not to impose any penalty or costs on the government.
Legal Representation
Wankhede was represented by advocates Ajesh Luthra and Jatin Parashar, while the government was represented by advocate Hanu Bhaskar. This ruling marks an important decision in Wankhede’s legal battle, as he continues to challenge the allegations and actions taken against him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
