The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has ruled in favor of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede, setting aside his transfer from Mumbai to Chennai. The Tribunal found the transfer order issued by the Department of Revenue in May 2022 to be arbitrary and in violation of the department’s own transfer policy.
Background of the Case
Sameer Wankhede, a 2008 batch IRS officer, was serving as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai when he gained public attention for his involvement in the high-profile Aryan Khan drug case in 2021. Following allegations of bribery and procedural lapses in the investigation, he was removed from the case, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered cases against him for alleged extortion and money laundering. Later, he was recalled from NCB and reassigned to the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) in Mumbai.
On May 30, 2022, an order from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) transferred Wankhede from DGARM Mumbai to the Directorate General of Taxpayer Services (DGTS) in Chennai. This transfer was challenged by Wankhede, citing procedural irregularities and personal security concerns due to threats received by him and his family.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Uttarakhand Chief Secretary's Affidavit Over CAMPA Fund Misuse Allegations
The CAT Principal Bench, comprising Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member A), ruled in favor of Wankhede, stating that the transfer order was:
- Arbitrary and unjust: The tribunal found that the transfer violated the Transfer/Placement Guidelines of 2018 for IRS (C&CE) officers issued by CBIC.
- Biased and retaliatory: The bench noted that Wankhede’s transfer seemed to be influenced by departmental bias rather than administrative necessity.
- Inconsistent with tenure rules: The Tribunal observed that Wankhede had spent six years and eight months on deputation across various government agencies like the NCB, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and Customs, which should have been excluded when determining his tenure in Mumbai.
“There is no disagreement on the point that an officer has an all-India liability to serve; however, respondents, while posting officers, need to adhere to their own policy in a fair, transparent, and just manner.”
“The transfer of the applicant is not in consonance with the new Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2018 for Indian Revenue Service (C&CE) Officers issued by the respondents dated 12th April 2018.”
The Tribunal also refrained from imposing costs on the respondents but emphasized that their handling of Wankhede’s case displayed elements of bias.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Delhi Government on Engaging Two Separate Advocates for the Same Case
Sameer Wankhede was represented by Advocate Ajesh Luthra, along with Advocate Jatin Parashar. The respondents, including the Union of India and the CBIC, were represented by Advocate Hanu Bhaskar.
The Tribunal took note of various Supreme Court judgments regarding the legality of transfer orders, including:
- Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) – which emphasizes that while transfers are an administrative prerogative, they must adhere to established policies.
- State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav (1995) – which highlights that courts should not interfere in routine transfers unless mala fide intent is evident.
- Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1990) – which states that interference in transfers should only occur in cases of legal violations or bad faith.
Wankhede submitted multiple representations to the authorities requesting reconsideration of his transfer due to security threats. He reported receiving threats against himself and his family from unidentified individuals, including international sources. Despite this, his requests for reconsideration were dismissed by the authorities, which the Tribunal found unjustified.
“The presence of the applicant in Mumbai is required for the safety and security of his family, given the continuous threats received by them.”
The Tribunal further directed that security concerns regarding Wankhede and his family be taken seriously by law enforcement agencies in both Mumbai and Chennai.
Case : Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Union of India | OA No. 3677/2024
