Central Govt Must Engage With State's Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that though the Voluntary Retirement from Service from All India Services requires a mandatory approval of the Central Government, this would not by itself, empower the Central Government to reject the application for VRS without considering the recommendation of the State Government. While dealing with a VRS plea of a Maharashtra Cadre Indian Police Service (“IPS”) Officer, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the concurrent findings of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had upheld the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's VRS plea. The Court noted that the Central Government's decision to reject the Appellant's plea for VRS was passed without a proper application of mind and did not contain the State Government's recommendation regarding the suitability of the Appellant to apply for VRS. “There is, therefore, no gainsaying about the position of the operation of the Rule that a request for VRS by a member of the (All India) service mandatorily requires acceptance of the Central Government…exercise of discretionary power in accepting or rejecting a request for VRS cannot be without engagement with views expressed by the State Government.”, the Court observed."The Central Government cannot form an opinion which is not supported by material on record. Though not bound by the recommendation of the State Government, its opinion does carry weight and persuasive value owing to the fact that it is the authority with direct supervisory knowledge of the officer serving in connection with affairs of that State and under whose authority any disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted.", the Court added.The Case The case arose after the appellant's third application seeking voluntary retirement, dated August 1, 2019 was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs on October 25, 2019 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were “pending or being contemplated” and that the officer was therefore “not clear from vigilance angle.” The rejection came despite the State Government recommending acceptance of the VRS application on October 16, 2019. The State Government had specifically noted that no chargesheet had been issued in any matter and that disciplinary proceedings were merely contemplated. It further opined that no major penalty was likely to be imposed on the officer. The officer challenged the rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his plea. The High Court subsequently affirmed the CAT's decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Decision Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Central Government's rejection order suffered from non-application of mind because it failed to distinguish between the three complaints or explain why the State Government's assessment was being disregarded. “…the decision and order of the Central Government in rejecting the notice for voluntary retirement on the ground that the appellant…suffers from non-application of mind. Further, the Central Government did not engage with the State Government's opinion…and the material considered therein, so as to justify the departure from the recommendation to permit the appellant to voluntarily retire from service.”, the court held. The Court noted that the rejection order merely used generic expressions such as “pending or being contemplated” without analysing whether disciplinary proceedings were actually pending in law. Further, the Court criticised the prolonged delays in disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant after rejection of his VRS application, as an unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can itself cause prejudice to the employee. [See State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154] In terms of the aforesaid, while allowing the appeal, the Court asked the Central Government to hear the Appellant's plea for VRS afresh. “…we are of the opinion that the Central Government has not examined the complaints in detail before taking the decision…of not accepting the notice for VRS…the Central Government must revisit its decision dated 25.10.2019 and examine the notice for voluntary retirement afresh.”, the court held. Cause Title: ABDUR RAHMAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 550Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashray Chopra, Adv. Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Paras Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shubhanginee Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mrs. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pavuluri, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

Central Govt Must Engage With State's Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Though the Central Govt is not bound by the recommendation of the State Government, its opinion does carry weight and persuasive value, the Court held.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Central Govt Must Engage With State's Views Before Rejecting All India Services Officer's VRS : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Though the Central Govt is not bound by the recommendation of the State Government, its opinion does carry weight and persuasive value, the Court held.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers