The Central Government has independent discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement of an All India Service officer, but such discretion must be exercised with proper application of mind and on existing material showing genuinely contemplated disciplinary proceedings

on

Facts

The appellant, a 1997 batch IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, sought Voluntary Retirement from Service (“VRS”) under Rule 16(2A) All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 on 01.08.2019. At the time, three complaints existed against him: allegations of domestic cruelty, contracting a second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage, and violation of Conduct Rules through a speech delivered at a book launch event. 

The State Government, by communication dated 16.10.2019, recommended acceptance of the VRS request, observing that though disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, no major penalty was likely. Para 5. However, the Central Government rejected the VRS request on 25.10.2019 stating that disciplinary proceedings were “pending or being contemplated” and therefore the appellant was not clear from vigilance angle. Para 6.

Subsequently, chargesheets were issued between 2020 and 2022 concerning alleged bigamy, public speeches, protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and absence from duty. Both the CAT and the High Court upheld the rejection of VRS.

Issues Framed

(i) Whether the Central Government is bound by the State Government’s recommendation while considering VRS under Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules.
(ii) Whether disciplinary proceedings were “pending or contemplated” against the appellant on the relevant date.
(iii) Whether the rejection order dated 25.10.2019 suffered from non-application of mind. Paras 15–32.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that under the proviso to Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules, voluntary retirement of an All India Service officer requires acceptance by the Central Government. Such acceptance is not a ministerial act but requires an independent and informed decision. Paras 15–21.

(b) Interpreting Guideline 3(ii) of the DoPT Guidelines, the Court held that the Central Government possesses discretion to reject VRS where disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for imposition of major penalty. However, the State Government’s recommendation carries “weight and persuasive value” because it directly supervises the officer. Paras 16–22.

(c) The Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings become “pending” only upon issuance of a formal chargesheet, relying on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman. Since no chargesheet had been issued by 25.10.2019, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the appellant on that date. Para 23.

(d) On “contemplation” of proceedings, the Court held that mere existence of complaints does not suffice; there must exist “a deliberate intention to act on a complaint.” Paras 24–26. The Court found that two complaints remained inactive or withdrawn, and only the third complaint concerning the speech at the book launch could possibly be said to be under contemplation.

(e) The Court concluded that the Central Government failed to properly engage with the State Government’s recommendation dated 16.10.2019 and mechanically rejected the request on vigilance grounds. The decision therefore suffered from “non-application of mind.” Paras 26–27.

(f) The Court also strongly criticised the State Government for extraordinary delays in issuance and conduct of disciplinary proceedings, observing that the manner of conducting enquiries was “unacceptable.” Paras 28–30. Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, the Court reiterated that unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings itself causes prejudice to the delinquent officer.

Held

The Supreme Court set aside the Central Government’s order dated 25.10.2019 rejecting the appellant’s VRS request, along with the judgments of the CAT and the High Court. The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to reconsider the appellant’s application for voluntary retirement afresh under the proviso to Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules, taking into account all subsequent developments, and pass appropriate orders within three months. 

Ratio

While the Central Government has final and independent authority to accept or reject voluntary retirement of an All India Service officer under Rule 16(2A) All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, rejection on vigilance grounds must be based on proper application of mind and material demonstrating genuinely pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings capable of resulting in major penalty

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 550
Decided on: 26 May 2026
Case Title: Abdur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Alok Aradhe, J.