IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptance of a voluntary retirement request by the Central Government requires a thorough examination of the circumstances, and it is not bound by the State Government's opinion regarding pending disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

(A) CHALLENGE:

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is a member of Indian Police Service (IPS) borne on Maharashtra Cadre, challenging the judgment and order dated 7th December 2023 passed by Mumbai Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) whereby Original Application No. 758 of 2019 filed by him has been dismissed and his prayer for quashing the decision dated 25th October 2019 rejecting his prayer for voluntary retirement has not been acceded to.

(B) FACTS:

2. Certain facts, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved in this petition, need to be noted. The petitioner is a 1997 batch IPS officer. By moving an application on 20th March 2018 to the State Government, he sought voluntary retirement from service, however, the said prayer was rejected by the Central Government by means of the order dated 1st June 2018 for the reason that the petitioner was not found clear from vigilance angle and disciplinary proceedings were pending/contemplated against him. Prior to the application dated 20th March 2018, the petitioner was denied his promotion, which led him to file Original Application No. 743 of 2017 before the Tribunal, which was allowed by means of order dated 18th December 2018 directing the respondents therein to hold review Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the petitioner for promotion in the rank of Special Inspector General of Police with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted.

3. In respect of certain charges, some departmental proceedings were also pending against the petitioner, however, the said departmental proceedings culminated in the order of exoneration passed on 1st January 2019 and thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application dated 1st August 2019 to the State Government seeking voluntary retirement. On the said application, the State Government sent the proposal for voluntary retirement of the petitioner to the Government of India, by means of letter dated 16th October 2019 mentioning therein that the three disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner, however, further observing therein that the charge-sheets in respect of the said contemplated disciplinary proceedings were not issued and that it seems that no major penalty may be imposed on the officer in all the three contemplated disciplinary actions.

4. The Central Government, however, considered the prayer of the petitioner and by means of the letter dated 25th October 2019, communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State Government that the competent authority in the Central Government has not acceded to the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner giving the reason that the petitioner was not clear from vigilance angle and disciplinary proceedings were pending/under consideration against him. It is this decision of the Central Government contained in the communication dated 25th October 2019 which was communicated to the petitioner by the State Government by its letter dated 30th October 2019, that became the subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 758 of 2019, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 7th December 2023. In the instant petition, challenge has been laid to the said judgment and order dated 7th December 2019 passed by the Tribunal.

(C) SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES (C-1)

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Impeaching the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner, has not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “1958 Rules) in its correct perspective and as such, has