Central Government may independently assess VRS requests but must meaningfully engage with State recommendations and material facts.

The appellant, a 1997-batch IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, submitted a notice for Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) on 01.08.2019 under Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules.

At the time, three complaints were pending against him: (I) alleged torture of a complainant’s wife, (II) alleged bigamy and torture of his first wife, and (III) a speech given at a book launch.

On 16.10.2019, the State Government recommended acceptance of the VRS, noting that no chargesheets had been issued and major penalties were unlikely.

On 25.10.2019, the Central Government rejected the request on the grounds that disciplinary proceedings were "pending or being contemplated".

Following the rejection, the State issued three formal chargesheets between 2020 and 2022, which remained inconclusive due to significant delays in appointing inquiry officers.

Both the CAT and the High Court upheld the Central Government's rejection.

Rule 16(2A) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which mandates that a notice for VRS by an officer with 20 years of service requires "acceptance by the Central Government".

Guideline 3(ii) of the DoPT Guidelines (1980), which stipulates that VRS may not ordinarily be accepted if disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty are pending or contemplated.

The court relied on Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India to distinguish "acceptance" (requiring application of mind) from "approval".

The definition of "pending" from Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, where proceedings commence only upon issuance of a charge-memo.

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Singh regarding the meaning of "contemplation".

The Court clarified that while the Central Government is the ultimate authority for VRS acceptance and is not strictly bound by the State’s recommendation, this discretion must be exercised through a "conscious and well-informed decision".

As of 25.10.2019, no chargesheets had been issued; thus, no proceedings were "pending".

Regarding "contemplation," the Court found that Complaint II had been withdrawn two years prior, and Complaint I was stagnant, leaving only Complaint III as a valid basis for contemplation.

The Court held that the Central Government failed to apply its mind because it did not engage with the State’s specific finding that Complaint III was unlikely to attract a major penalty.

The Court noted the "unacceptable" and "unjustified" delay by the State in concluding the subsequent 2020-2022 chargesheets, which caused undue prejudice to the officer.

It held that while the Central Government has the final word, the original rejection suffered from non-application of mind regarding the actual status of the complaints.

The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) to reconsider the appellant’s VRS application afresh within three months, specifically taking into account the stagnant nature of the current disciplinary proceedings and the facts highlighted in the judgment.

The appellant was granted liberty to seek further legal remedies if aggrieved by the fresh decision.