Mere registration of FIR without judicial cognizance cannot bar voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(k).

The Applicant, an Assistant Commissioner in the CGST Chandigarh Zone, submitted a notice for voluntary retirement (VRS) under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(k) on 24.11.2021

At the request of the Respondents, he resubmitted a comprehensive request on 12.01.2022, which fixed the expiry of the three-month notice period as 12.04.2022

The Applicant relinquished his charge on 12.04.2022; however, at 05:45 PM that same day, the Respondents served a communication rejecting his VRS request

The Respondents contended that the rejection was valid due to a pending CBI FIR (dated 29.09.2021) involving allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption against the Applicant

1. Whether the mere registration of a CBI FIR or the pendency of an investigation constitutes "judicial proceedings" under the proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(k)

2. Whether the Respondents’ rejection of the VRS request on the final day of the notice period was legally sustainable in the absence of a disqualifying condition

The court applied Fundamental Rule 56(k), which grants Government servants the right to retire voluntarily upon giving three months' notice, subject to the "proviso" that allows the authority to withhold permission if the servant is under suspension, a departmental charge-sheet has been issued, or "judicial proceedings" for grave misconduct are pending

The "Explanation" to FR 56(k) stipulates that judicial proceedings are deemed pending only when a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint or police report

The Tribunal also relied on B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat (1978) 2 SCC 202, which held that withholding permission must be based on a positive decision communicated before the effective date

Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India (2025), regarding the principle of deemed acceptance of VRS upon expiry of the notice period

The Tribunal analyzed whether any disqualifying conditions under the proviso to FR 56(k) existed on 12.04.2022

It noted that the Applicant was not under suspension and no departmental charge-sheet had been issued

Regarding the CBI FIR, the Tribunal observed that as of the date the notice period expired, no charge-sheet had been filed before a competent court and no Magistrate had taken cognizance

The sanction for prosecution was only granted on 20.04.2022, confirming the matter was still at the investigation stage on the relevant date

Applying the statutory "Explanation" to FR 56(k), the Tribunal held that "judicial proceedings" were not legally pending

It reasoned that the gravity of criminal allegations cannot substitute the specific statutory requirement of judicial cognizance

Consequently, the communication of rejection, despite being sent within the notice period, was void of a legally sustainable ground

The OA was allowed, and the communications dated 12.04.2022, 11.05.2022, and 12.05.2022 were quashed

The Respondents were directed to treat the Applicant as retired from 12.04.2022 and to release all consequential retiral and pensionary benefits within eight weeks

No order as to costs was made