Cordelia Cruise Case: Delhi High Court Modifies CAT Order, Sets Aside Direction To Pass Speaking Order Before Initiating Action Against Sameer Wankhede

Modifying an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in August last year, the Delhi High Court has set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of an enquiry report in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case, after granting a personal hearing to him.

A division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar partly allowed the appeal moved by the Central Government challenging the order of CAT passed on August 21 last year.

Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal held that NCB DGP Gyaneshwar Singh could not have been part of the inquiry team set up to probe alleged procedural lapses by Wankhede in connection with the case.

Wankhede had moved CAT challenging the report of Special Enquiry Team (SET) constituted by NCB's Competent Authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against him in the manner he conducted the raid on the cruise.

The CAT had observed that Gyaneshwar Singh, being actively involved in the investigation could not have been part of the SET, and directed that an opportunity for a hearing be given to Wankhede before taking any action.

Disposing of the appeal, the High Court found no infirmity with the directions issued by the Tribunal insofar as it directed that Wankhede be granted an opportunity of personal hearing before any decision to initiate any action against him is taken.

“….we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the present case, where respondent no. 4 (Singh) is alleged to have issued directions to the applicant (Wankhede) while he was conducting investigation, there is no infirmity with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal insofar as it directs that he be granted an opportunity of personal hearing by respondent no. 1 and/or respondent no. 5 before deciding to initiate any action against him,” the court said.

“However, the directions of the learned Tribunal requiring the respondent no. 1 and 5 to pass a reasoned and speaking order before taking a decision to initiate action against the applicant is wholly unsustainable and is required to be set aside,” it added.

The bench observed that such a requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order before initiating any action against Wankhede, would be contrary to the scheme of CCS (CCA) Rules itself.

“For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is, partly allowed by setting aside the directions issued in para 9 of the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 insofar as it directs the respondent no. 1 and 5 to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting a personal hearing to the applicant/respondent no. 1 i.e., before taking a decision as to whether any action is required to be initiated against him,” the bench said.

However, it clarified that the order will not come in the way of Wankhede in assailing the impugned order, if so advised.

The Union Government assailed the order on the ground that it was wholly perverse as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that under the CCS (CCA) Rules, there is no requirement of granting any opportunity of personal hearing to a delinquent employee before issuing a charge sheet to him.

On the other hand, Wankhede's counsel supported the impugned order by contending that it is Wankhede who is aggrieved by the same as the Tribunal, despite noticing the fact that Singh, who was issuing him directions when he was carrying out the investigation, was made the Chairman of the SET.

Recently, a single judge disposed of Wankhede's contempt plea alleging non-compliance of the Tribunal's order.

The single judge said that the petition was not maintainable but granted liberty to Wankhede to approach the CAT for redressal of his grievances.

Wankhede then filed complaint against Singh before a Delhi Court, alleging that he harassed him during the enquiry conducted to probe the alleged procedural lapses by him in connection with the Cordelia cruise drugs case.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Prakash CGSC with Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Adv. and Mr Yasharth Shukla, Adv

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Atul Nagrajan and Mr. Saurav Joon and Mr. Anand Kumar, Advs. for R- 1

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232

Click Here To Read Order