Delhi High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede on 28 August, 2025

Author:
Navin Chawla

Bench:
Navin Chawla

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 29.07.2025
Pronounced on: 28.08.2025

+ W.P.(C) 10271/2025 & CM APPL. 42676/2025

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with
Mr.Shivam Tiwari, Mr.Umar
Hashmi, Ms.Urmila Sharma,
Advs.
versus

SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog and
Mr.Arvind Nayar, Sr.Advocates
with Mr.T.Singhdev, Mr.Nikhil
Palli, Mr.Jatin Prashar,
Ms.Niyati Razdan, Ms.Bhavya
Sharma, Mr.Vaidushya Parth,
Mr.Shubham, Ms.Anum
Hussain, Ms.Manisha,
Ms.Ankita, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 1 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

„Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 2835/2024, titled
Sameer Dnyandev
Wankhede vs. Union of India and Ors.
, allowing the said OA filed by
the respondent herein with following directions:

"8. In light of the above, we allow this OA
with following directions:

(a) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are directed to
open the sealed cover pertaining to
applicant's promotion and in the event his
name is recommended by UPSC, he shall be
granted promotion to the post of Additional
Commissioner w.e.f. 01 .01.2021.

(b) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are further
directed to place applicant's name at
appropriate position in the final seniority
list dated 28.03.2024 of Joint
Commissioners of Customs and Indirect
Taxes.

The aforesaid directions shall be complied
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order."

2. The respondent had filed the above OA, contending therein that
the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 18.03.2024,
which had been constituted for considering the case of the eligible ad-
hoc officers for regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner,
had kept the case of the respondent in a sealed cover contrary to the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in
Union of India & Ors. v.
K.V.Jankiraman & Ors.
, (1991) 4 SCC 109. The learned Tribunal, by
the Impugned Order, has accepted the said challenge of the
respondent, and has passed the above quoted directions.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 2 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in the present case, an FIR has
been registered by the CBI against the respondent on 11.05.2023. An
ECIR bearing No.36/2023 has also been registered by the
Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the respondent under the
provisions of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(in
short, „PMLA‟). He submits that a Draft Charge-sheet for invocation
of major penalty was issued on 27.09.2022 and another one, on
27.12.2022. He submits that there was also a complaint received
against the respondent that the respondent had submitted a forged
Caste Certificate for obtaining employment. The same had also been
referred to the CBI for investigation. He submits that a complaint
dated 28.07.2023 was also received from the Departmental Legal
Advisor, that the respondent had sought confidential information in
relation to the pending investigation, and same is also being
investigated further by the department.

4. He submits that in view of the above facts, the exception carved
out by the Supreme Court in the
Judgment of K.V.Jankiraman

(supra), while dealing with Civil Appeal No.51-55/1990, was squarely
applicable.

He also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme
Court in
Union of India v. Kewal Kumar
, (
1993) 3 SCC 204, and
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Syed Naseem Zahir & Ors.
, 1993 Supp (2)
SCC 225, to submit that as the FIR has been registered by the CBI on
serious allegations, the decision of the DPC to resort to the sealed
cover procedure was justified.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 3 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

Submissions of the learned senior counsels for the respondent:

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsels appearing for the
respondent, on advance notice of this petition, submit that three
limited circumstances in which the sealed cover procedure can be
followed, as
laid down by

K.V.Jankiraman
(supra) and adopted by
the Government of India vide its Office Memorandums dated
14.09.1992 and 25.10.2004, were not made out in the present case,
inasmuch as there was neither a charge-sheet, or a disciplinary
proceeding pending, nor a criminal case registered against the
respondent.

They place reliance on the Judgments of this Court in

A.V. Prem Nath v. Union of India & Ors.
, 2023 SCC OnLine Del
3215;
Sanjay Yadav v. Union of India & Anr.
, 2025 SCC OnLine Del
2553; and Neeraj Kumar pandey v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 604, to submit that the Impugned Order passed by the
learned Tribunal is in accordance with the law as declared by these
judgments.

6. Further, drawing the attention of this Court to the reply filed by
the petitioners before the learned Tribunal, they submit that it was the
own case of the petitioners, that pursuant to the Order dated
12.03.2024 of this Court in WP(C) 3404/2024, titled
Sameer
Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Ors.
, it had apprised the
CVC vide letter dated 26.07.2024, that the issuance of charge memo to
the respondent, in pursuance of the first stage advise given by the
CVC, cannot be carried out as of now and shall be kept in abeyance.
They submit that even the further course of action that had been

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 4 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

mentioned by the petitioners in its reply before the learned Tribunal,
does not fit into the limited parameter wherein the sealed cover
procedure can be followed.

7. As far as the FIR registered by the CBI is concerned, placing
reliance on the Order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the High Court of
Bombay in a Criminal Writ Petition No.1910/2023, titled
Sameer
Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Ors.
, they submit that
therein, the CBI had sought three months further time to complete the
investigation. Therefore, the said FIR is still at the stage of
investigation and the stage of filing of the charge-sheet is far away,
again not resulting in the limited circumstances in which the sealed
cover procedure can be adopted.

Analysis and findings:

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.

9. From the above narration of facts, it would be evident that as on
today, there is no Departmental Proceedings pending against the
respondent wherein any charge-sheet had been issued against him. In
fact, the petitioners in its reply-affidavit filed before the learned
Tribunal, has admitted as under:

"It may be submitted herein that attention is
invited to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Order
dated 12.03.2024 in W.P (C) No. 3404/2024
filed by the applicant wherein it has been held:

"4. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ
petition along with all accompanying

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 5 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

applications is disposed of as not pressed
by clarifying that the evidence recorded in
the SET will not be relied upon in the
departmental enquiry which may be
held against the petitioner as per law."

Subsequently, the applicant forwarded copy of
another Order dated 22.03.2024 of the
Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi in O.A. No.
1033/2024, whereby the Honble CAT disposed
off this OA strictly in terms of the direction of
the Hon'ble High Court's aforesaid Order
dated 12.03.2024 by directing that the
evidences recorded during the course of the
preliminary inquiry, conducted by the SET,
will not be relied upon in any further
departmental inquiry/ disciplinary
proceedings, if they were to be held in
accordance with the rules governing
disciplinary proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High
Court of New Delhi and Hon'ble CAT (PB),
New Delhi, it has been apprised to CVC vide
letter dated 27.06.2024 that the issuance of
Charge Memos to the applicant, in pursuance
of the First Stage Advices given by CVC, may
not be carried out as of now in the light of the
aforesaid Order dated 12.03.2024 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The CVC vide OM dated 07.08.2024 has noted
the above position as intimated by CBIC.

Accordingly, after taking approval of the
competent authorities following agencies were
requested to take appropriate action afresh:

i. NCB vide letter dated 27.06.2024 was
requested to take needful action/ decision
about conducting fresh enquiry in relation to
NCB case Cr. No. 94/2021 (Cordelia Cruise
Case), in the light of the Order dated
12.03.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 6 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

Delhi;

ii. DGoV, Zonal Unit, Mumbai vide letter
dated 21.06.2024 was requested to conduct
vigilance investigation on the alleged violation
of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by the applicant
with regard to alleged mis-declaration/
concealment of details in respect of his private
visits to foreign countries and expenses during
his Maldives travel and the same is underway;

iii. CBI vide letter F. No. V.584/05/2022/
11820 dated 27.06.2024 was requested to
conduct investigation in relation to allegations
pertaining to sale/ purchase of expensive
watches by the applicant in addition to two
complaints forwarded by this office received
from Sh.Nawab Mallick and Shri Ratnakar
Gedam against the applicant."

10. The respondent has also neither been placed under suspension
nor any charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution has been filed against
him.

11. The three conditions for placing the case of the respondent in a
sealed cover, as set out in the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992
which has been issued in compliance with the judgment of the
Supreme Court in
K.V. Jankiraman
(supra), are therefore not met.

12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
submitted that there are grave allegations against the respondent for
which an FIR and an ECIR have been registered, and CVC on earlier
occasion has also advised initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the
fact remains that neither a charge-sheet in the criminal cases has been
filed, nor disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge sheet have

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 7 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

been initiated so far. This Court is not to examine the reasons for the
same. However, we may herein also note that the CBI itself took time
to complete the investigation, as recorded in the Order dated
08.07.2025 passed by the Bombay High Court and referred herein
above, and the petitioners itself advised the CVC not to proceed
further with the Departmental Inquiry.

13.
In
K.V. Jankiraman
(supra), the Supreme Court negated the
plea of the Department that a sealed cover procedure can be allowed
to be followed merely because the allegations against the employee
are serious in nature and it may take time to collect necessary
evidence to prepare and issue charge memo and charge-sheet. The
Supreme Court observed that if the allegations are so serious and the
Authorities are so keen in investigating them, ordinarily, it should not
take time to collect the relevant evidence and finalize the charges;
there is also a power vested with the Authority to suspend the
employee under the relevant Rules, which itself will permit the
Authority to resort to the sealed cover procedure and in absence of any
of the above, resorting to the sealed cover procedure will not be
permissible. We quote from the judgment as under:

"16. On the first question, viz., as to when for
the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the
disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said
to have commenced, the Full Bench of the
Tribunal has held that it is only when a
charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or
a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is
issued to the employee that it can be said that
the departmental proceedings/criminal
prosecution is initiated against the employee.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 8 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted
to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet
is issued. The pendency of preliminary
investigation prior to that stage will not be
sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt
the sealed cover procedure. We are in
agreement with the Tribunal on this point.
The contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant-authorities that
when there are serious allegations and it
takes time to collect necessary evidence to
prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-
sheet, it would not be in the interest of the
purity of administration to reward the
employee with a promotion, increment etc.
does not impress us. The acceptance of this
contention would result in injustice to the
employees in many-cases. As has been the
experience so far, the preliminary
investigations take an inordinately long time
and particularly when they are initiated at the
instance of the interested persons, they are
kept pending deliberately. Many times they
never result in the issue of any charge-
memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are
serious and the authorities are keen in
investigating them, ordinarily it should not
take much time to collect the relevant evidence
and finalise the charges. What is further, if the
charges are that serious, the authorities have
the power to suspend the employee under the
relevant rules, and the suspension by itself
permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure.
The authorities thus are not without a remedy.
It was then contended on behalf of the
authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the
Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent
with each other. Those conclusions are as
follows:

"(1) consideration for promotion,
selection grade, crossing the efficiency
bar or higher scale of pay cannot be
withheld merely on the ground of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 9 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

pendency of a disciplinary or criminal
proceedings against an official;
(2)*****
(3)*****
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be
resorted only after a charge memo is
served on the concerned official or the
charge sheet filed before the criminal
court and not before."

17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming
contradiction between the two conclusions.
But read harmoniously, and that is what the
Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions
can be reconciled with each other. The
conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that
the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely
because some disciplinary/criminal
proceedings are pending against the employee.
To deny the said benefit, they must be at the
relevant time pending at the stage when
charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been
issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no
inconsistency in the two conclusions."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. As far as the reliance of the petitioners on the observations and
finding of the Supreme Court in
K.V. Jankiraman
(supra), as far as
the Civil Appeal No.51-55/1990 is concerned, it may only be noted
that the employees therein had admitted to their guilt and were
suspended, and had in fact even deposited the amount drawn by them
by submitting alleged false Leave Travel Concessions claims using
forged documents. Based thereon, though the Department had taken a
lenient view and the criminal prosecution against the employees was
dropped, however, it had been done without prejudice to the
Departmental Proceedings which were subsequently initiated, and the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 10 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

formal charge-sheet was also issued to the employees. It was in those
peculiar facts that the Supreme Court held that such employee will not
be entitled to claim the benefit of promotion.

15. As noted hereinabove, in the present case, there is no admission
of guilt on part of the respondent, and it is not the case of the
petitioners that investigation has been completed by the CBI or the
ED, resulting in a charge-sheet being filed against the respondent. As
far as the Departmental Proceedings are concerned, the petitioners
itself has advised CVC not to proceed further with the same.

16. Equally, reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in
Syed Naseem Zahir
(supra) cannot also be
accepted. In
the said judgment
, the Supreme Court found that though
the DPC was not justified in keeping the recommendation pertaining
to the respondent therein in a sealed cover, however, due to the
subsequent development that the Departmental Inquiry had been
completed and the charges against the respondent therein had been
found to be proved, it would not be justified for directing the sealed
cover to be opened without a decision on the Departmental
Proceedings, which was likely to come in "matter of days". In the
present case, as noted herein above, the Disciplinary Proceedings are
yet to start against the respondent leave alone being concluded in
"matter of days".

17.
In
Kewal Kumar
(supra), the Supreme Court was considering a
case where, based on an FIR registered against the respondent therein
by the CBI, a decision to initiate Departmental Proceedings had been

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 11 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43

taken prior to the meeting of the DPC and, in fact, the charge sheet
had been issued almost immediately following the DPC. In such
peculiar facts, the Supreme Court held that a direction to open the
sealed cover was not justified. It needs only a reiteration that no such
fact exists in the present case.

Conclusion:

18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the
Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

19. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application is
also disposed of being infructuous.

20. The directions given by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned
Order shall be complied with, within 4 weeks from the date of present
Judgment.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

MADHU JAIN, J
AUGUST 28, 2025/Arya/VS

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10271/2025 Page 12 of 12

By:REYMON VASHIST

Signing Date:28.08.2025

18:55:43