Voluntary retirement takes effect upon notice expiry absent timely communicated refusal by the appointing authority.

The applicant, a Postman, was directed in June 2022 to refund ₹18,754 in incentives allegedly claimed for RPLI policies procured by other postal employees.

After a further inquiry, he gave three months’ notice on 19.08.2023 seeking voluntary retirement from 20.12.2023 under Rule 43(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

The department informed him that his VRS papers would be processed after the inquiry, but did not issue a formal order refusing retirement before the notice period expired.

The applicant treated himself as relieved on 20.12.2023.

The department rejected his VRS notice on 16.01.2024, and a Rule 14 charge memorandum followed on 09.05.2025.

He challenged the rejection and charge memorandum and sought recognition of his retirement and settlement of terminal benefits.

Whether the applicant’s voluntary retirement became effective on expiry of the three-month notice period when no refusal was issued and communicated before that period expired.

Whether the department’s subsequent rejection of the VRS notice and its later charge memorandum could undo or prevent the retirement from taking effect.

Rule 43(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 permits a government servant with twenty years’ qualifying service to retire by giving at least three months’ written notice; Rule 43(2) requires acceptance but provides that retirement takes effect on expiry of the notice period if the appointing authority has not refused permission by then.

Rule 43(3) permits permission to be withheld in specified circumstances, including suspension, a charge-sheet with disciplinary proceedings pending, or pending judicial proceedings.

The Tribunal also considered the Government of India guidelines under Rule 43 and the related provisions of FR 56 and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Relying on UCO Bank v. S.K. Shrivastava, Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020, judgment dated 07.04.2026, and the authorities discussed therein, including Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, the Tribunal applied the principle that where refusal is legally permissible, the competent authority must make and communicate a positive order withholding retirement within the notice period; mere contemplation or pendency of an inquiry does not, by itself, prevent the notice from taking effect.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had completed the relevant qualifying service and that no suspension, formal charge-sheet, pending disciplinary proceedings, or judicial proceedings existed when the notice period expired.

Although the department had told him that his VRS papers would be processed after the inquiry, those communications did not amount to a clear, formal refusal of retirement communicated before 20.12.2023.

The later rejection, issued in January 2024, could not stop the notice from taking effect by operation of Rule 43(2); nor could the charge memorandum issued in May 2025 retrospectively prevent retirement.

The Tribunal therefore treated the applicant’s voluntary retirement as effective from 20.12.2023, while observing that the department remained free to proceed against him under the applicable rules.

The Tribunal set aside the VRS rejection dated 16.01.2024, the appellate/review-related order dated 27.02.2024, and the charge memorandum dated 09.05.2025; declared the applicant relieved from service with effect from 20.12.2023; and directed settlement of his terminal benefits under the applicable rules.

It clarified that the respondents were not precluded from taking proceedings against him under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

No order as to costs was made.