Whereas deprecating the conduct, a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain stated it expects that the Centre will disclose all of the details in truth earlier than submitting of the plea.
The Centre was looking for assessment of the excessive courtroom's August 28 order by which the federal government was directed to seek out out the UPSC's advice concerning the promotion of Wankhede, and promote him in case there's such a commendation.
Wankhede, a 2008 batch Indian Income Service (IRS) officer, made headlines for allegedly demanding Rs 25 crore from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan's household by threatening to implicate his son Aryan Khan within the Cordelia cruise drug bust case throughout his tenure within the Narcotics Management Bureau (NCB) Mumbai in 2021.
In its verdict, the excessive courtroom had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's December 2024 ruling, which had directed the federal government to open the sealed cowl pertaining to Wankhede's promotion and if his identify was beneficial by the UPSC, then promote him to the put up of further commissioner with impact from January 1, 2021.
The federal government had approached the excessive courtroom, claiming that Wankhede's case was positioned in a sealed cowl because of the instances lodged towards him.Through the Friday's listening to, Centre's counsel Ashish Dixit argued that earlier than the August 28 order, the competent authority had issued a cost memorandum and initiated common departmental proceedings towards Wankhede on August 18, thereby legitimately invoking the “sealed cowl” process.He claimed that the courtroom's choice was primarily based on the wrong factual assumption that no cost memo or cost sheet had been issued, and due to this fact, a assessment was justified on the grounds of this demonstrable error.
The plea was opposed by advocate T Singhdev, representing Wankhede, who sought dismissal of the petition on the bottom that it was a tactic to harass the officer.
He stated though the promotion order was issued in January 2021, the Centre delayed its implementation for a number of months and solely challenged the CAT's choice after Wankhede initiated contempt proceedings.
Singhdev stated whereas the excessive courtroom had reserved its verdict on July 29 on the Centre's petition towards the CAT order, the federal government went on to situation a cost sheet towards the officer on August 18 and failed to tell the courtroom of this growth earlier than the judgment was delivered on August 28.
He additional contended that in its assessment petition, the Centre hid the truth that the CAT, by way of its order dated August 27, had restrained it from continuing additional with the departmental inquiry towards Wankhede.
The bench took into consideration the submissions and dismissed the assessment petition whereas deprecating the federal government for concealing materials details from the courtroom.
“We've thought of the submissions made by the counsel for the events. Admittedly, as on the date of departmental promotion committee (DPC) and date of order handed by the tribunal on December 17, 2024, as affirmed by us, the trigger for contemplating the suggestions of DPC in a sealed cowl had not been met. Actually they had been additionally not met on July 29 after we had reserved our judgment within the writ,” the bench stated whereas dictating the order.
It additional stated, “Nonetheless, we strongly deprecate the petitioner from concealing from this courtroom the order dated August 27, 2025 whereby the petitioner has been restrained from continuing with the additional departmental inquiry towards the respondent.
“We'd count on that the petitioner, being the federal government, as a state, would disclose all details in truth earlier than us whereas submitting the writ. For the above-mentioned petition, we dismiss the petition with prices of Rs 20,000 to be deposited with the Delhi Excessive Court docket Advocate Welfare Fund”.
The federal government had challenged the CAT order, claiming that there have been grave allegations towards Wankhede for which an FIR and an ECIR had been registered, and the CVC on an earlier event had additionally suggested initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
