Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 23.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 28.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 29.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2491/2026, CM APPL. 12079/2026, CM APPL.
12080/2026 and CM APPL. 12081/2026
SHISHIR PRIYADARSHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC
along with Ms. Nasreen
Khatoon, GP for R-1.
+ W.P.(C) 2498/2026, CM APPL. 12104/2026, CM APPL.
12105/2026 and CM APPL. 12106/2026
ATUL BAGAI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC along
with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. :
INTRODUCTION:
1. The Petitioner, by way of the present Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of a Writ
in the nature of Certiorari to quash the final order dated 15.10.2025
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 1 of 18
Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „CAT‟] in O.A.
Nos.490/2016 and 497/2016.
2. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties,
two connected Writ Petitions involving an identical issue shall stand
disposed of by this common order. In fact, the CAT also disposed of
two O.As by a common order vide treating the case of Shishir
Priyadarshi as the lead case.
3. The central question which arises for consideration is whether
the Petitioners can be held to have validly sought voluntary retirement
under Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement
Benefits) Rules, 1958, so as to defeat the action taken by the
Respondents under Rule 7(2)(c) of the All India Services (Leave)
Rules, 1955 declaring them as deemed to have resigned from service
on account of prolonged unauthorized absence. This is in light of the
fact that Shishir Priyadarshi and Atul Bagai were absent from their
respective duties effectively from 01.06.2006 and 23.08.2005
respectively.
BRIEF FACTS IN W.P.(C) 2491/2026:
4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts are being noticed from W.P.(C) 2491/2026, which is
being treated as the lead case.
5. The Petitioner is a member of the 1980 batch of the Indian
Administrative Service, allotted to the Uttar Pradesh cadre.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 2 of 18
6. On 17.01.2001, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet
(„ACC‟) approved the proposal for grant of cadre clearance to the
Petitioner for a foreign assignment with the South Centre, Geneva,
supported by the United Nations Development Programme („UNDP‟),
for a period of two years commencing from January 2001, under
Foreign Service terms, in relaxation of the requirement of a cooling-
off period between two long-term foreign assignments.
7. Upon completion of the initial tenure, the Petitioner sought
extension, which was granted, and his deputation stood extended up to
31.05.2006.
8. Prior to the expiry of the extended tenure, the Petitioner
submitted a request dated 25.04.2006 seeking further extension for a
period of two years with effect from 01.06.2006. The Department of
Personnel and Training („DoPT‟) sought the comments of the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh in this regard.
9. The Petitioner reiterated his request for extension vide
communication dated 13.10.2006. However, the ACC did not approve
the proposal for further extension. This decision was communicated to
the Petitioner on 21.03.2007, with a direction to report back to his
parent cadre within one month, failing which appropriate action would
follow.
10. Despite the aforesaid direction, the Petitioner did not report
back to duty. The State Government issued communications,
including letter dated 08.07.2007, directing him to join within one
month, failing which disciplinary proceedings would be initiated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 3 of 18
11. Vide communication dated 30.07.2007, the Petitioner indicated
that he would join by 30.08.2007. The Petitioner, however, submitted
a joining report only on 01.09.2008.
12. Shortly thereafter, on 14.09.2008, the Petitioner applied for
grant of study leave up to the end of 2009. Clarification was sought
from him on 31.12.2008 as to whether the proposed research work
would be undertaken within India or abroad.
13. In response, vide communication dated 05.02.2009, the
Petitioner stated that his research work may be undertaken either
within the country or outside and that he would be working closely
with the World Trade Organization („WTO‟), Geneva.
14. The record reflects that the Petitioner continued to remain
abroad and did not effectively resume duties in his parent cadre. On
10.08.2010, the State Government issued a notice requiring the
Petitioner to join within 15 days, failing which disciplinary
proceedings would be initiated, noting that his continued absence was
in violation of the applicable service rules.
15. In response, vide communication dated 15.09.2010, the
Petitioner expressed his inability to join within the stipulated period
and indicated that he may report back by December 2010. In the
alternative, he requested that he be granted voluntary retirement from
the Indian Administrative Service with immediate effect. The relevant
part of the communication sent by the Petitioner on 15.09.2010 is
extracted as under:
―Secondly, I would also like to indicate that it will be impossible
for me to join the State Government within 15 days as advised.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 4 of 18
This is far too little a time period for me to wind up my work here,
get all my clearances, surrender my apartment, ship all my house
hold goods, and complete all the other necessary formalities.
However, I can try and wind up this work in the next few months
and try to report to the State Government in December 2010. I
would therefore be extremely grateful if this permission is please
accorded to me. However, in case it is not possible for the
Government to grant me this additional time, then I would request
that I may please be granted VRS from the Indian Administrative
Service with immediate effect.‖
16. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the Petitioner on 18.10.2010 under the All India Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
17. During this period, the Petitioner also submitted a
communication dated 02.12.2010 seeking regularization of his
absence for the period from 01.06.2006 onwards by way of earned
leave/half pay leave, study leave and extraordinary leave, and
indicated his intention to report back to his parent cadre on
16.12.2010.
18. Subsequently, vide communication dated 22.12.2010, the
Government of India advised that the disciplinary proceedings be
dropped and that the case be considered under Rule 7(2)(c) of the All-
India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant provision has been reproduced as under: -
Rule 7 of the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955 is read as
follows:
―maximum period of absence from duty-
(1) No member of the Service shall be granted leave of any kind for
a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2) A member of the Service shall be deemed to have resigned from
the service if he -
(a) is absent without authorisation for a period exceeding one year
from the date of expiry of sanctioned leave or permission, or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 5 of 18
(b) is absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years
even if the period of unauthorized absence is for less than a year,
or
(c) continues of foreign service beyond the period approved by the
Central Government:
Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reason for
such absence or continuation of foreign service shall be given to
the member of the Service before the provisions of this sub-rule are
invoked.‖
19. The Petitioner continued to address representations to the
authorities, including communications dated 01.08.2011, 11.11.2011
and 29.12.2011, seeking regularization of his absence and reiterating
his request for voluntary retirement.
20. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the statutory
provision governing voluntary retirement. Rule 16(2) of the All India
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 reads as
under:
―(2) A member of the Service may, after giving at least three months’
previous notice in writing to the State Government concerned and the
Central Government, retire from service:
Provided that no member of the Service under suspension shall retire
from service except with the specific approval of the Central
Government:
Provided further that the Central Government may, in public interest,
withhold permission to a member of the Service who seeks to retire
under this sub-rule:
Provided also that the Central Government may waive the
requirement of notice.‖
21. In the meanwhile, the Respondents issued a notice dated
12.10.2011 under Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules directing the
Petitioner to rejoin duty. The Petitioner did not comply with the said
notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 6 of 18
22. The record further reflects that during this period, the Petitioner
applied for senior positions in public sector undertakings, including
the post of Chairman and Managing Director in Coal India Limited
and other entities, and such applications were forwarded by the State
Government.
23. The Petitioner continued to remain absent and did not report
back to his parent cadre. On 19.03.2013 and subsequent occasions, he
was again called upon to join duty.
24. Thereafter, a final opportunity was granted to the Petitioner vide
communication dated 22.08.2014 under Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS
(Leave) Rules, calling upon him to submit his explanation and report
for duty, failing which the matter would be referred to the
Government of India for a final decision.
25. In response, vide communication dated 22.09.2014, the
Petitioner reiterated that he had already applied for voluntary
retirement and requested that the same be accepted.
26. The Petitioner, however, did not report back to duty.
27. Ultimately, by notification dated 27/28.08.2015, the Competent
Authority declared that the Petitioner shall be deemed to have
resigned from the Indian Administrative Service with effect from
01.06.2006 in terms of Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules.
28. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid notification before the
Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. A
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 7 of 18
similar challenge was laid by the connected Petitioner in W.P.(C)
2498/2026.
BRIEF FACTS IN W.P.(C) 2498/2026:
29. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2498/2026, Shri Atul Bagai, was an
officer of the Indian Administrative Service, 1985 batch, allotted to
the Uttar Pradesh cadre. With cadre clearance granted by Respondent
No. 1 in July 2000, the Petitioner joined UNEP, DTIE, Paris as a
Training Officer with effect from 16.08.2000. In 2002, he was posted
to Bangkok as Regional Officer (Networking) at the UN Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific. On 11.03.2006, Respondent No. 2
issued a letter directing the Petitioner to rejoin his parent cadre,
referring to an earlier communication dated 09.12.2005. The
Petitioner's case is that the letter dated 09.12.2005 was never received
by him and came to his knowledge only in 2010. On 12.06.2007,
Respondent No. 1 declined to grant further extension of cadre
clearance and directed that appropriate action be initiated.
30. The Petitioner rejoined his parent cadre on 05.12.2008 but
before he could be given the posting, he applied for one year‟s paid
leave on 06.12.2008 and, on 05.11.2009, sought further extension of
cadre clearance up to 31.10.2011 along with two years‟ extraordinary
leave. By letter dated 30.08.2010, Respondent No. 2 directed the
Petitioner to report for duty within 15 days, noting that he had been
absenting himself from duty without authorization.
31. In response, by letter dated 15.09.2010, the Petitioner sought
time until December 2010 to report back and, in the alternative,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 8 of 18
sought voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2) of the AIS (DCRB)
Rules, 1958 in the event that additional time was not granted.
32. Once again the Petitioner reported back to duty on 22.11.2010,
but before he could be assigned the post, he applied for grant of leave
from 29.11.2010 to 15.01.2011 and thus, was not available for posting
with the State Government. On 16.07.2014, Respondent No. 2 issued
a fresh show-cause notice under Rule 7(2) of the AIS (Leave) Rules,
1955 for unauthorized absence.
33. By order dated 18.11.2015, Respondent No. 1 treated the
Petitioner as having "deemed resigned" from service with effect from
24.08.2005 under Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955. The
Petitioner filed O.A. No. 497/2016 before the learned CAT, seeking
quashing of the said order and a declaration that he had validly stood
voluntarily retired on 15.12.2010 with full consequential pensionary
and retiral benefits. The CAT dismissed the O.A. by the common
impugned order dated 15.10.2025.
34. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of both the Original
Applications by the Tribunal by a common order, the present Petitions
have been filed.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
35. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned
action declaring the Petitioners to have deemed to have resigned from
service is wholly unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the Petitioners had
already sought voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 16(2) of the All
India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 9 of 18
36. It is contended that Rule 16(2) does not mandate any formal
acceptance by the competent authority for voluntary retirement to take
effect. Once a notice of voluntary retirement is given in terms of the
Rule, the retirement becomes effective automatically upon expiry of
the prescribed notice period.
37. The learned counsel submits that the Petitioner had, vide
communication dated 15.09.2010, clearly expressed his intention to
seek voluntary retirement. The said request was reiterated through
subsequent communications dated 11.11.2011 and 29.12.2011. It is
argued that these communications, read cumulatively, constitute a
valid notice under Rule 16(2).
38. It is further submitted that the Respondents failed to take any
decision on the Petitioner‟s request for voluntary retirement within a
reasonable period, and in any case within the statutory notice period.
In such circumstances, the voluntary retirement must be deemed to
have come into effect upon expiry of the notice period.
39. The Petitioners contend that once the voluntary retirement stood
effected, the Respondents could not have invoked Rule 7(2)(c) of the
AIS (Leave) Rules to declare them as deemed to have resigned. The
impugned notification is, therefore, without jurisdiction.
40. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the
Respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Petitioners were not only
denied the benefit of voluntary retirement but were also subjected to
the stigmatic consequence of deemed resignation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 10 of 18
41. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon
the following judgments to contend that voluntary retirement becomes
effective automatically upon expiry of the notice period and does not
require formal acceptance:
1
i. Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam ;
2
ii. B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat ;
3
iii. Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir ;
4
iv. State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal ;
5
v. Union of India v. Arun Mishra & Anr. ;
vi. Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing &
6
Processing Corporation Ltd. v. Suman Behari Sharma
42. It is, thus, submitted that the Impugned Order declaring deemed
resignation deserves to be set aside and the Petitioners be treated as
having voluntarily retired from service.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
43. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
submits that the Petitioners remained on unauthorized absence from
01.06.2006 onwards, despite clear denial of extension of their foreign
assignment and repeated directions to report back to their parent
cadre.
1
(1977) 4 SCC 441
2
(1978) 2 SCC 202
3
1995 Supp (1) SCC 76
4
(1999) 4 SCC 293
5
W.P.(C) 7917/2020 decided by the Delhi High Court on 05.07.2023.
6
(1996) 4 SCC 584
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 11 of 18
44. It is submitted that the decision of the ACC declining further
extension was duly communicated to the Petitioners on 21.03.2007,
along with a direction to join within one month. Despite this, the
Petitioners in both the Writ Petitionsfailed to comply and continued to
remain abroad without sanction.
45. The Respondents contend that the communications relied upon
by the Petitioners do not constitute a valid notice of voluntary
retirement under Rule 16(2). In particular, the communication dated
15.09.2010 is stated to be conditional and in the alternative, and
therefore does not reflect a clear and unequivocal intention to retire.
46. It is further submitted that Rule 16(2) requires a notice of not
less than three months. The Petitioners neither furnished such notice
nor complied with the statutory requirements. In the absence of a valid
notice, the question of deemed acceptance does not arise.
47. The Respondents emphasize that the Petitioners adopted
inconsistent and shifting stands. At various points of time, they sought
extension of deputation, applied for different kinds of leave, expressed
willingness to join at a future date, and simultaneously sought
voluntary retirement. Such conduct, it is submitted, disentitles them
from claiming any equitable relief.
48. It is also contended that the Petitioners were granted repeated
opportunities to rejoin service, including notices issued under Rule
7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, namely the notice dated 12.10.2011
and the final opportunity dated 22.08.2014. Despite this, the
Petitioners failed to report back.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 12 of 18
49. The Respondents further submit that, acting on the advice of the
Government of India, disciplinary proceedings initially initiated were
dropped, and instead action was taken under Rule 7(2)(c), which
specifically provides for deemed resignation in cases of continued
unauthorized absence.
50. It is argued that the action of declaring the Petitioners as
deemed to have resigned is in strict conformity with the statutory
scheme and after affording adequate opportunity to the Petitioners.
51. Learned counsel also points out that during the period of
unauthorized absence, the Petitioners were actively pursuing other
engagements, including applying for senior positions in public sector
undertakings, which demonstrates lack of bona fide intention to
resume service.
52. It is, therefore, submitted that the Petitioners have failed to
establish any legal right to claim voluntary retirement, and the
impugned action does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
53. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner was,
undisputedly, not granted extension of his foreign assignment beyond
31.05.2006. The decision of the Appointment Committee of the
Cabinet declining further extension was unequivocally communicated
to the Petitioner on 21.03.2007, along with a clear direction to report
back to his parent cadre within one month. The consequence of non-
compliance was also explicitly indicated, namely that his overstay
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 13 of 18
would be treated as unauthorized with effect from 01.06.2006. Despite
such clear communication, the Petitioner chose not to rejoin his
duties. Although an assurance was extended that he would return by
30.08.2007, the record reveals that even when a joining report was
submitted on 01.09.2008, it was immediately followed by an
application for study leave, and thereafter the Petitioner continued to
remain engaged abroad, including with the World Trade Organization,
without securing approval for such continued absence. The sequence
of events unmistakably establishes that the Petitioner remained on
unauthorized absence from 01.06.2006 onwards.
54. The entire edifice of the Petitioner‟s case rests on the plea that
he had sought voluntary retirement and that such request, not having
been expressly rejected within the stipulated period, must be deemed
to have been accepted. However, a careful scrutiny of the
communication dated 15.09.2010, which is sought to be relied upon as
the foundational request for voluntary retirement, reveals that it does
not satisfy the requirements of Rule 16(2). The said communication is
not an unequivocal notice of voluntary retirement; rather, it is couched
in alternative terms. The Petitioner first expresses his inability to join
within the time granted and seeks further time to wind up his affairs,
indicating that he would attempt to report back by December 2010. It
is only in the alternative, and contingent upon refusal of such
extension, that a request for grant of voluntary retirement “with
immediate effect” is made. Such a conditional and contingent request
cannot be construed as a valid notice under Rule 16(2), which
contemplates a clear and unambiguous intention to retire, coupled
with a notice of not less than three months.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 14 of 18
55. The statutory requirement of notice is not an empty formality. It
serves a substantive purpose, enabling the Government to make
appropriate administrative arrangements. While the Rule confers
discretion upon the Government to waive the notice period, such
waiver cannot be presumed in the absence of a valid and
unconditional notice. In the present case, not only was the request
conditional, it also did not conform to the prescribed notice period.
Consequently, the foundational requirement for invoking the doctrine
of deemed acceptance does not stand satisfied.
56. The subsequent communications dated 11.11.2011, 29.12.2011
and other representations also do not improve the Petitioner‟s case.
These communications, read holistically, reflect a shifting and
inconsistent stand. At one stage, the Petitioner expresses willingness
to join; at another, he seeks regularization of absence as leave; and
simultaneously presses for voluntary retirement. Even on 29.12.2011,
while asserting that he had submitted a joining report, he continued to
seek acceptance of voluntary retirement. Such inconsistent positions
belie the existence of a clear and unequivocal intention to retire in
terms of Rule 16(2). It is, therefore, evident that the Petitioner never
submitted a request for voluntary retirement in the manner
contemplated under the Rules.
57. In this backdrop, the reliance placed by the Petitioner on
judicial precedents laying down that voluntary retirement becomes
effective upon expiry of the notice period without formal acceptance
is misplaced. Those decisions proceed on the premise that a valid
notice in accordance with the applicable rules had been given. In the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 15 of 18
absence of such a valid notice, the question of deemed acceptance
does not arise. The Petitioner cannot invoke the benefit of such
precedents while simultaneously failing to comply with the statutory
preconditions for seeking voluntary retirement.
58. Equally significant is the conduct of the Petitioner throughout
the relevant period. Despite repeated communications and directions
from the State Government, including warnings that disciplinary
proceedings would be initiated, the Petitioner failed to rejoin duty.
Notices under Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules were issued,
including the initial notice dated 12.10.2011 and the final opportunity
granted on 22.08.2014. The Petitioner, however, persisted in
remaining abroad and continued to reiterate his request for voluntary
retirement instead of complying with the direction to rejoin. The
record further indicates that during this period, the Petitioner applied
for and pursued appointments to high public sector positions such as
Chairman and Managing Director of Coal India Limited, Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited and MMTC, which applications were duly
forwarded by the State Government. This conduct reinforces the
conclusion that the Petitioner was not genuinely inclined to return to
his parent cadre and discharge his duties.
59. The prolonged unauthorized absence, coupled with the failure
to respond meaningfully to repeated opportunities to rejoin service,
squarely attracted the provisions of Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave)
Rules. The Respondents, acting upon the recommendation of the
Government of India, first dropped the disciplinary proceedings and
instead proceeded under the said Rule, thereby affording the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 16 of 18
further opportunity to resume duty. Even thereafter, adequate notices
and final opportunities were granted. The invocation of Rule 7(2)(c)of
the AIS (Leave) Rules, culminating in the declaration that the
Petitioner shall be deemed to have resigned from service, cannot be
said to suffer from any procedural or substantive infirmity. The Rule 7
of the AIS (Leave) Rules, reads as under:
―7. Maximum period of absence from duty—(1) No member of the
Service shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period
exceeding five years.
(2) A member of the Service shall be deemed to have resigned from
the service if he –
(a) is absent without authorisation for a period exceeding one
year from the date of expiry of sanctioned leave or permission,
or
(b) is absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five
years even if the period of unauthorized absence is for less than
a year, or
(c) continues of foreign service beyond the period approved by
the Central Government:
Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reason for such
absence or continuation of foreign service shall be given to the
member of the Service before the provisions of this sub-rule are
invoked.‖
60. The argument that the Respondents were obliged to either
accept or reject the request for voluntary retirement within three
months also proceeds on an erroneous assumption that a valid request
had been made. In the absence of a request conforming to Rule 16(2),
no such obligation arose. The Petitioner cannot, by submitting an
equivocal and non-compliant representation, compel the Respondents
to treat the same as a valid notice and then rely upon alleged inaction
to claim deemed acceptance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 17 of 18
61. Viewed in its entirety, the factual matrix demonstrates a
consistent pattern of unauthorized absence, conditional and non-
compliant requests for voluntary retirement, and repeated non-
compliance with directions to rejoin duty. The Petitioners were
afforded more than adequate opportunity to return to service, yet
consciously chose not to do so. The action taken by the Respondents
is, therefore, a direct consequence of the Petitioners‟ own conduct.
CONCLUSION:
62. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, this Court is concerned with the legality of the decision-
making process. The impugned action does not disclose any
arbitrariness, perversity, or violation of statutory provisions. On the
contrary, it reflects due adherence to the governing rules and
principles of natural justice. The findings returned by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Petitioners had failed to
submit a valid request for voluntary retirement and that the invocation
of Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules was justified, do not warrant
interference.
63. Accordingly, the present Petitions, along with pending
applications, are dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 28, 2026/ sp/kb
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
15:28:39
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 and connected matter Page 18 of 18