The Delhi High Court in the case Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union Of India observed and has clarified that the evidence recorded in the Special Enquiry Team, SET will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry which is proposed to be held against Sameer Wankhede as per law in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur in the case observed and has disposed of the petition of Wankhede’s against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT on August 21 last year in so far as it is refused to quash the findings of SET. The Tribunal in the case observed and has 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.
Therefore, Wankhede had moved CAT challenging the report of the 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. It has been observed by CAT 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.
The counsel appearing for Wankhede stated that instead of pressing the plea, the bench may clarify that SET findings would not be used against Wankhede in the departmental enquiry proposed to be held against him.
The court in the case disposed of the writ plea along with the accompanying applications wherein it is not clarified 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.
The court in the case observed and has partly allowed the appeal moved by the Central Government and modified the CAT’s order.
Further, the court set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of the enquiry report, after granting a personal hearing to him. The bench headed by single judge disposed of Wankhede’s contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order.
The single judge stated that the petition was not maintainable but granted liberty to Wankhede to approach the CAT for redressal of his grievances.
In the present case, Wankhede then filed a complaint against Singh before a Delhi Court, wherein it is alleged that he harassed him during the enquiry conducted to probe the alleged procedural lapses by him in connection with the Cordelia cruise drugs case.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Viraj Dass, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul and Mr. Shadab Anwar appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Kritiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Varun Rajawat, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Mr. Kartik Baijal and Mr. Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates for R-1 to 4; Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Ms. Astu Khandelwal and Mr. Yasharth Shukla represented the respondent-5.
