Centre Must Revisit VRS Rejection Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Central Government had not examined the complaints in detail before rejecting the appellant’s request for voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.

The appellant, an IPS officer of the 1997 batch, had sought voluntary retirement after earlier attempts had failed. His 2019 request was recommended by the State Government, which recorded that charge-sheets had not yet been issued in the pending matters and that major penalty proceedings did not appear likely. The Ministry of Home Affairs, however, rejected the request on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated and that he was not clear from the vigilance angle.

The Court noted that the complaints against the appellant later resulted in charge-sheets dated 17 June 2020, 6 October 2020 and 24 April 2022. It also noted that the State Government had been unable to conclude those disciplinary proceedings. In that backdrop, the Court held that the Central Government must revisit its decision dated 25 October 2019 and examine the VRS notice afresh.

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment affirming the CAT’s order and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to pass appropriate orders under the proviso to Rule 16(2A) after taking into account the facts and circumstances noted in the judgment. It also directed that the decision be taken within three months.

For service law purposes, the judgment shows that a VRS rejection based on pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings is not immune from reconsideration when later developments reveal how those proceedings actually unfolded.

Practical takeaway: where VRS is rejected on vigilance or disciplinary grounds, later charge-sheet developments and delay in finalising proceedings may justify a fresh administrative decision.