Abdur Rahmanv.Union of India & Ors

Legal Analysis: Abdur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 550
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Decision: May 26, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21390 of 2024 against the judgment of the High Court confirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer of the 1997 batch, Maharashtra cadre, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The State Government recommended acceptance, opining that pending complaints against him would not warrant a major penalty. However, the Central Government rejected the VRS notice on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were “pending or being contemplated” against the appellant. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court upheld the rejection. The Supreme Court set aside the rejection, holding that the Central Government had not properly applied its mind to the complaints, as only one of the three complaints could be said to be genuinely under contemplation on the relevant date. The Court also noted the excessive and unexplained delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and remanded the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs for fresh consideration within three months.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Abdur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 550

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21390 of 2024

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe)

• Date of Decision: May 26, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Judgment dated 23.07.2024 of the High Court (Calcutta?) – the judgment does not specify which High Court, but it is from the context.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 – Rule 16(2A) (voluntary retirement after 20 years of service; notice to State Government; first proviso requires acceptance by Central Government if retirement date would be earlier than under sub-rule (2)).

• Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Guidelines on VRS dated 16.10.1980 – Guideline 3(ii): where disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority is of the view that a major penalty of removal or dismissal would be warranted, the VRS notice “may not ordinarily be accepted”.

• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Rule 2(b) (definition of disciplinary authority), Rule 7(2) (penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an All India Service officer can be imposed only by the Central Government).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 (power of Supreme Court to do complete justice).

Key Precedents Cited

• Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 704 – Examined Rule 16(2A) and the amendment substituting “State Government” with “Central Government”; held that voluntary retirement requires acceptance by the Central Government, which must apply its mind; “acceptance” is not a ministerial act.

• State of Haryana v. Dinesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 222 – “Contemplation” of disciplinary proceedings connotes a deliberate intention to act on a complaint, not mere pendency of a complaint.

• State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154 – Unexplained delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings causes prejudice to the delinquent employee; the court must balance considerations of delay and justice.

3. Relevant Facts

• The appellant is an IPS officer of the 1997 batch, Maharashtra cadre.

• Three complaints were pending against him at the time of his VRS notice dated 01.08.2019:
  Complaint I (22.07.2014): By Tukaram Bhimrao Jadhav alleging torture of his wife. No action taken by 25.10.2019.
  Complaint II (28.04.2016): By appellant’s father-in-law alleging second marriage without consent and torture of first wife and son. The complainant withdrew the complaint on 22.09.2017, more than two years before the Central Government’s decision.
  Complaint III (29.03.2019): Arising from a speech at the launch of his book “Denial and Deprivation”; an enquiry was initiated for violation of Conduct Rules. The State Government, in its recommendation letter dated 16.10.2019, stated that a detailed inquiry report with draft charge sheet was awaited but opined that no major penalty would be warranted.

• The State Government, on 16.10.2019, recommended acceptance of the VRS notice, stating that no major penalty was likely.

• The Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs), on 25.10.2019, rejected the VRS notice, stating that disciplinary proceedings were “pending or being contemplated” and that the appellant was not clear from the vigilance angle.

• The CAT dismissed the appellant’s Original Application on 07.12.2023, holding that the complaints were under contemplation and that the State Government’s opinion could not bind the Central Government.

• The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 23.07.2024.

• Subsequently, three charge sheets were issued:
  Charge sheet I (17.06.2020): Major penalty for contracting second marriage.
  Charge sheet II (06.10.2020): Minor penalty (later converted to major) for the book launch speech.
  Charge sheet III (24.04.2022): Major penalty for protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and absence from duty.

• Disciplinary proceedings have been excessively delayed; inquiry officers were appointed years later, and the proceedings remain inconclusive.

4. Issues

• Issue No. 1: Whether the Central Government, under the proviso to Rule 16(2A) of the 1958 Rules read with Guideline 3(ii) of the DoPT Guidelines, is bound by the State Government’s opinion on whether pending disciplinary proceedings would warrant a major penalty, or whether it has independent discretion to reject the VRS notice.

• Issue No. 2: Whether, on the relevant date (25.10.2019), disciplinary proceedings were “pending or contemplated” against the appellant within the meaning of Guideline 3(ii).

• Issue No. 3: Whether the Central Government’s order dated 25.10.2019 suffered from non-application of mind, and whether the subsequent delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings should influence the fresh consideration of the VRS application.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a VRS notice under Rule 16(2A); it is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation (Paras 15-22).
The Court held that the proviso to Rule 16(2A) was amended in 1988 to substitute “Central Government” for “State Government”. The scheme of the All India Services Rules consistently treats the Central Government as the repository of ultimate authority over career‑terminating decisions. Therefore, while the State Government’s opinion carries weight and persuasive value (as it has direct supervisory knowledge), the Central Government must independently apply its mind. The word “acceptance” in the proviso is not a ministerial act; it requires a considered decision. Guideline 3(ii) vests discretionary power in the Central Government – the notice “may not ordinarily be accepted” – meaning it can, in appropriate cases, be accepted even if a major penalty is possible. (Paras 15-22)

B. The existence of “contemplation” of disciplinary proceedings requires a deliberate intention to act, not mere pendency of a complaint (Paras 23-26).
Relying on Dinesh Singh, the Court clarified that a complaint is “under contemplation” only when the disciplinary authority has taken some concrete step indicating an intention to initiate proceedings – not merely when a complaint is pending. As on 25.10.2019:

• Complaint I: No action taken; not under contemplation.

• Complaint II: Withdrawn by the complainant on 22.09.2017; therefore not under contemplation.

• Complaint III: An enquiry was initiated, and a draft charge sheet was awaited. This alone could be said to be under contemplation.
  Thus, the Central Government’s blanket rejection based on all three complaints was not supported by the material. (Paras 23-26)

C. The Central Government’s order suffered from non‑application of mind because it did not engage with the State Government’s opinion or the specific status of each complaint (Para 26-27).
The Court held that the order dated 25.10.2019 was cryptic and did not discuss why the State Government’s view was being rejected. It did not distinguish between the complaints or explain how each qualified as “contemplation”. Therefore, the order was set aside. (Paras 26-27)

D. Excessive and unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings is a relevant factor when reconsidering the VRS application (Paras 28-31).
The Court noted that charge sheets were issued long after the VRS notice, and the proceedings have been dragged on for years without conclusion. Quoting N. Radhakishan, the Court observed that unexplained delay causes prejudice to the delinquent employee and reflects on the seriousness of the disciplinary authority. While the Court did not quash the disciplinary proceedings, it directed the Central Government to take note of the delay while reconsidering the VRS application. (Paras 28-31)

E. The matter is remanded to the Ministry of Home Affairs for fresh consideration within three months (Paras 32-34).
Instead of granting the VRS outright, the Court set aside the rejection order and directed the Central Government to reconsider the VRS notice afresh, taking into account the facts and circumstances, including the fact that only Complaint III was under contemplation and the inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 32-34)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• First, the power of the Central Government to accept or reject a VRS notice under Rule 16(2A) is discretionary and independent, but it must be exercised with proper application of mind. The Central Government cannot rely on a rote or blanket assessment; it must evaluate each pending complaint individually to determine whether it qualifies as “contemplation” within the meaning of Guideline 3(ii).

• Second, a complaint that has been withdrawn by the complainant is no longer “under contemplation” for the purpose of Guideline 3(ii). The disciplinary authority cannot use a withdrawn complaint as a ground to deny VRS.

• Third, “contemplation” requires more than the mere existence of a complaint; there must be some concrete step indicating a deliberate intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings. A vague or dormant complaint does not satisfy the standard.

• Fourth, excessive delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, especially when the delay is unexplained, is a factor that the Central Government must consider while deciding a VRS application. The right of a government servant to seek voluntary retirement cannot be indefinitely stalled by inchoate proceedings that the State itself does not pursue with diligence.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court first interpreted Rule 16(2A) and traced its legislative history. It noted that prior to 1988, the State Government was the accepting authority; the amendment shifted that power to the Central Government. This was a deliberate choice to ensure uniformity and central control over the severance of service of All India Service officers.

The Court then analysed the scope of Guideline 3(ii). It held that the guideline is not an absolute prohibition but a discretionary guideline. The phrase “may not ordinarily be accepted” leaves room for acceptance in appropriate cases. The Central Government must exercise its discretion reasonably, not arbitrarily.

On the factual matrix, the Court meticulously examined each complaint. It noted that Complaint II was withdrawn more than two years before the Central Government’s decision. There was no “contemplation” left. Complaint I had no action taken for over five years; it was a dead letter. Only Complaint III had active movement – an enquiry was initiated and a draft charge sheet was awaited. Therefore, the Central Government’s conclusion that proceedings were “pending or contemplated” was an overstatement.

The Court also criticised the State Government for the inordinate delay in issuing charge sheets (up to five years after the events) and then further delaying the appointment of inquiry officers. It observed that such delay itself could be a ground for prejudice, though it did not quash the proceedings.

Finally, the Court distinguished Ashok Kumar Sahu, noting that it dealt with withdrawal of VRS after acceptance, not with rejection. It held that the present case required remand for fresh consideration, not a direction to accept the VRS, because the Central Government had not yet exercised its discretion properly.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly balances the Central Government’s ultimate authority with the need for reasoned decision-making. It prevents the Central Government from rejecting VRS applications on vague or outdated grounds without genuine contemplation. The distinction between a “pending complaint” and “contemplated proceedings” is crucial and aligns with service jurisprudence. The emphasis on the withdrawn complaint being irrelevant is a practical and just approach.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not conclusively determine that the appellant is entitled to VRS; it only directs reconsideration. This leaves the appellant in limbo for another three months, and the Central Government could again reject the VRS, albeit with better reasoning. However, the Court’s detailed analysis of the complaints and the delay will guide the Central Government. Another concern is that the Court did not explicitly hold that the State Government’s delay in issuing charge sheets is a ground to quash the disciplinary proceedings – it only noted it as a factor. This may be seen as a missed opportunity to provide a clearer remedy for delayed disciplinary action.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by All India Service officers seeking VRS when disciplinary proceedings are pending. It clarifies that the Central Government cannot rely on stale or withdrawn complaints, and that “contemplation” requires active steps. It also reinforces that excessive delay in disciplinary proceedings can weigh in favour of the employee when seeking VRS. The judgment may also encourage disciplinary authorities to expedite proceedings if they wish to oppose VRS.

9. Final Outcome

• The appeal was allowed.

• The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 23.07.2024 was set aside.

• The order of the Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) dated 25.10.2019 rejecting the VRS notice was set aside.

• The matter was remanded to the Ministry of Home Affairs for fresh consideration of the appellant’s VRS notice dated 01.08.2019.

• The Ministry was directed to take into account the facts and circumstances, including the status of the complaints and the delay in disciplinary proceedings, and pass appropriate orders under the proviso to Rule 16(2A) within three months.

• It was clarified that if the appellant is aggrieved by the fresh order, he may avail remedies available in law, including approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.

10. Practical Application

First, an All India Service officer seeking voluntary retirement can argue that the Central Government cannot reject the VRS notice based on complaints that are not genuinely “under contemplation”. If a complaint has been withdrawn or remains dormant for years without any action, it does not satisfy the requirement under Guideline 3(ii). This judgment provides a clear test.

Second, if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated but there is inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding them, the officer can rely on this judgment to argue that the delay itself is a factor favouring acceptance of VRS. The officer may also seek quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay, separately.

Third, the State Government’s recommendation, while not binding on the Central Government, must be given due weight and the Central Government must engage with its reasoning. A cryptic rejection without discussing the State’s opinion is liable to be set aside.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Discretion of Central Government – Para 21):
“The words ‘may not ordinarily be accepted’ in Paragraph (ii) of the Guidelines is intended to vest in the Government the discretionary power of acceptance or rejection of the notice depending on the facts in which an employee is situated. … the Rule contemplates exercise of power with responsibility to ensure good governance, balancing discipline with freedom of employee and fairness in action.”

Line 2 (Contemplation requires deliberate intention – Para 24, quoting Dinesh Singh):
“Contemplation in the present context connotes a deliberate intention to act on a complaint, instead of a mere existence of a pending complaint. That is, it is to be seen whether there exists a possibility or a contingency that a formal departmental proceedings may follow a given complaint, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to ‘contemplation’.”

Line 3 (Central Government not bound by State’s opinion – Para 18):
“We are not in agreement with Mr. Ahmadi’s submission that the Central Government could not have taken a different view once the State Government forwarded its recommendation … Such an inference would render proviso to Rule 16(2A) meaningless. The Rule specifically empowers the Central Government to take the final decision of acceptance of a notice of VRS by a member of the service.”

Line 4 (Delay causes prejudice – Para 30, quoting N. Radhakishan):
“If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. … Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a government employee seeking VRS:

• Before applying for VRS, ensure that any pending complaints are either closed or have not been acted upon for a substantial period. If complaints are dormant, document the lack of action.

• In the VRS application, specifically request the State Government to opine on whether the pending matters would warrant a major penalty. If the State Government recommends acceptance, include that recommendation prominently.

• If the Central Government rejects the VRS, challenge the rejection on the ground of non‑application of mind. Point out which complaints were not under genuine contemplation (e.g., withdrawn, stale).

• If disciplinary proceedings have been delayed unreasonably, raise that as a separate ground. The delay itself can be used to argue that the proceedings are no longer serious.

For the Central Government defending a VRS rejection:

• Maintain a clear record of the status of each complaint. If a complaint is under active consideration (e.g., inquiry ordered, draft charge sheet prepared), document it.

• When rejecting a VRS application, issue a speaking order that engages with the State Government’s recommendation and explains why each complaint qualifies as “pending or contemplated”.

• Ensure that disciplinary proceedings are concluded expeditiously; otherwise, a court may direct acceptance of VRS on the ground of delay and prejudice.

For a lawyer drafting a VRS rejection order:

• List each complaint separately and state the action taken on each.

• For complaints that are “contemplated”, specify what steps have been taken (e.g., inquiry initiated, show cause notice issued).

• Discuss the State Government’s recommendation and explain why the Central Government disagrees, giving cogent reasons.

• Keep the order concise but reasoned; avoid cryptic statements like “the officer is not clear from vigilance angle”.