Authority must reconsider voluntary retirement application upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings with a minor penalty.

The Applicant, aged 45, serving in the Puducherry Police Department, submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement (VR) on August 27, 2025

On December 19, 2025, the 2nd Respondent rejected this application because a departmental inquiry, based on a Charge Memorandum dated November 12, 2025, was pending

On February 6, 2026, the disciplinary proceedings concluded with the imposition of a 'Censure' penalty

Parallelly, on February 2, 2026, the Respondents issued an order declaring the Applicant a 'Deserter' effective October 18, 2025

The Applicant contended that he had submitted medical leave certificates for that period through the proper channel

The Tribunal had previously kept this 'Deserter' order in abeyance via an interim order dated February 16, 2026

1. Whether the rejection of the Applicant’s Voluntary Retirement application is liable to be reconsidered following the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings

2. Whether the order treating the Applicant as a 'Deserter' requires review in light of the Applicant’s medical leave submissions and the concluded inquiry

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied the principle of administrative fairness, requiring authorities to review consequential orders when the foundational reason for a decision (in this case, the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry) has been resolved or altered

The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the VR application was based on the pendency of a departmental inquiry, which has since been finalized with a penalty of 'Censure'

It observed that the various actions taken by the Respondents—the rejection of VR, the disciplinary proceedings, and the declaration of desertion—were "consequential to each other"

The Tribunal determined that because the disciplinary hurdle was cleared, the Respondents were now obligated to re-evaluate the VR application.

Furthermore, the 'Deserter' status needed a fresh review because the Applicant had allegedly provided medical certificates which were not properly accounted for in the Respondents' previous determination

The Respondents were specifically directed to review the 'Deserter' order dated February 2, 2026, while accounting for the medical leave certificates submitted by the Applicant

The Respondents must pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the judgment

All pending MAs were closed without costs