Disciplinary Proceedings Are 'Pending' Only After Issuance Of Chargesheet; Rejection Of VRS Notice Requires Proper Application Of Mind: Supreme Court

"A disciplinary proceeding is pending only when a formal chargesheet is issued. As on the date on which the Central Government rejected the appellant’s VRS Notice, no chargesheet had been served upon the appellant. No disciplinary proceedings were therefore pending against him." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 26, 2026, held that the Central Government must exercise a well-considered discretion when accepting or rejecting a Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) notice.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the mere existence of a complaint does not equate to "pending" disciplinary proceedings, as proceedings are legally initiated only upon the formal issuance of a chargesheet.

The appellant, Abdur Rahman, an IPS officer of the 1997 Batch (Maharashtra cadre), tendered a notice for Voluntary Retirement from Service on August 1, 2019, under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. Despite the State Government recommending the acceptance of his VRS, the Central Government rejected the request on October 25, 2019, stating he was not clear from a "vigilance angle" due to pending or contemplated proceedings. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Bombay High Court subsequently upheld this rejection, leading to the present appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the Central Government was justified in rejecting the VRS notice on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were "pending or contemplated" against the officer. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of the Central Government’s authority under Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules and the effect of unexplained delays in concluding disciplinary inquiries.

Central Government Is The Ultimate Authority For VRS Acceptance

The Court began by examining the scope of Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules, clarifying that the Central Government is indeed the repository of ultimate authority over career-terminating decisions for IPS officers. The bench noted that following an amendment in 1988, the power to accept a notice of retirement moved from the State Government to the Central Government.

Independent Assessment Required By Central Government

The bench emphasized that while the State Government's recommendation carries persuasive value, the Central Government must conduct an independent assessment of the facts. The Court observed that the act of "acceptance" as required by the first proviso to Rule 16(2A) is not a ministerial or routine act but involves an informed decision-making process based on the material on record.

Court Distinguishes Between 'Pending' and 'Contemplated' Proceedings

In a crucial clarification of service law, the Court relied on the precedent set in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) to define when proceedings can be termed "pending." The bench held that disciplinary proceedings are only considered pending once a formal chargesheet has been issued to the delinquent employee.

Deliberate Intention Required For 'Contemplation' Of Proceedings

Regarding "contemplated" proceedings, the Court held that this connotes a deliberate intention to act on a complaint rather than the mere existence of a pending complaint. It must be shown that there is a possibility or contingency that formal departmental proceedings will follow. The bench noted that as of the date of rejection in 2019, two of the three complaints against the appellant were either inconclusive or had been withdrawn.

Non-Application Of Mind In Vigilance Clearance Rejection

The Court found that the Central Government's decision to reject the VRS request suffered from non-application of mind because it did not engage with the State Government's opinion. The State had previously noted that the complaints were unlikely to result in a major penalty. The bench observed that the Central Government failed to examine the complaints in detail before concluding that the officer was not clear from a vigilance angle.

Unjustified Delay In Disciplinary Proceedings Causes Prejudice

Addressing the subsequent developments, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the "tardiness" of the State Government in conducting the inquiry. It noted that while chargesheets were eventually issued in 2020 and 2022, inquiry officers were only appointed in 2024. The bench cited State of AP v. N. Radhakishan (1998) to reiterate that unexplained delay in concluding proceedings is an indication of prejudice.

Unacceptable Conduct Of Inquiries By State Government

The bench remarked that the method and manner of conducting these proceedings were "unacceptable," noting that the appellant was receiving summons for preliminary hearings in 2025 and 2026 for incidents dating back years. The Court held that an employee has a right to an expeditious conclusion of proceedings and should not be made to undergo prolonged mental agony.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment as well as the Central Government's order dated October 25, 2019. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to revisit the appellant's VRS notice afresh, taking into account the long and inconclusive delay in the disciplinary proceedings. The bench ordered that a fresh decision be taken within three months.

Date of Decision: May 26, 2026