
Sameer Wankhede
IRS (Customs and Indirect Taxes), Central service (CBIC) cadre, Serving 2025
No published career transfer count; included as the clearest IRS transfer litigation.
- Documented
- One report
- Years with no move on record
Summary
IRS officer who led the NCB's Aryan Khan case and was then moved from Mumbai to Chennai; a tribunal called the move malicious, the High Court said the tribunal had no basis for that finding, and the case is back before the tribunal. He also faces a CBI FIR (May 2023); his counsel denies the allegations.
The moves, and what came of them
Oldest first. Each fold is marked by how well the record holds it.
Documented
Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM), MumbaiDirectorate General of Taxpayer Services (DGTS), Chennai
Transferred months after leaving the Narcotics Control Bureau, where he had led the 2021 case against Aryan Khan.
- Reported reason
- CAT (Feb 2025) attributed malice to the department, finding no proof of 'illegal activities' and that his deputation years should be excluded from his Mumbai tenure under the 2018 Transfer/Placement Guidelines (as described by the Delhi High Court).
- The other side said
- Union government (in the High Court): he was transferred over allegations of 'illegal activities', supported by a CBI FIR of 11 May 2023; he had been posted in Mumbai for 12 years; his OA, filed Sep 2024, was time-barred. His counsel denied the allegations and said a later FIR cannot justify an earlier transfer; his representations were rejected on 18 Jul 2024.
- Outcome
- Joined in Chennai in June 2022 (undisputed, per the High Court).
- What became of the matter
- Pending. CAT Principal Bench (OA 3677/2024) set aside the transfer on 20 Feb 2025; the Delhi High Court set that aside on 21 Jul 2025 and sent the case back to CAT to decide afresh, including on limitation, preferably within two months. Result of the remand not found. indiankanoon.org
Transfer order CBIC transfer order dated 30.05.2022 (referred to in the Delhi High Court order; not public), May 2022
Judgment Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Anr., CAT Principal Bench, O.A. 3677/2024 (linked from the High Court order; not read), Feb 2025
Judgment Union of India & Anr vs Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 10362/2025, Jul 2025
we, however, prima-facie find that the learned Tribunal has attributed malice to the petitioners by finding that the respondent was posted "in Delhi", which was not even the case of the respondent.
3 years with no move on record here.
Documented
Additional Commissioner, Directorate General of Taxpayer Services, Chennai (transferred there from DGARM Mumbai on 30 May 2022)Transfer set aside by CAT
The CAT Principal Bench set aside his 2022 transfer from Mumbai to Chennai, holding it broke the department's own 2018 transfer guidelines; LiveLaw reports the bench said the department's stand 'smacks their bias towards him'. His representations of 6 Jun 2022 and 18 Jul 2024 had been rejected.
- Reported reason
- Wankhede alleged the transfer was punitive and a consequence of his NCB work (ET).
- The officer said
- Alleged the transfer was punitive; said he and his family got death threats (ET).
- The other side said
- The department argued he had been in Mumbai since 2010; CAT held his 6 years 8 months on deputation had to be excluded under the policy (LiveLaw). ET and LiveLaw note the allegations that he demanded money from Shah Rukh Khan's family, the CBI and ED cases against him, and the departmental inquiry begun 16 Jun 2022.
- Outcome
- Transfer quashed; CAT declined to impose costs.
- What became of the matter
- Transfer reversed. Whether he was reposted to Mumbai after the order not found.
Order Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India, CAT Principal Bench, OA 3677/2024 (as quoted by The Economic Times), Feb 2025
We are well aware of the facts that it is a settled law that a transfer, which is an incident of service, is not to be interfered with by the courts, unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. However, the actions of respondents are such which do not fall within the policy framework laid by themselves,
Order Same order (as quoted by LiveLaw), Feb 2025
There is no disagreement on the point that officer has All India liability to serve, however, respondents while posting the officers needs to adhere to their own policy in a fair,transparent and just manner,
Sources
Photo: UploadPhoto5554, CC0