The Supreme Court set aside the Central Government’s 2019 decision refusing voluntary retirement to IPS officer Abdur Rahman, holding that the Ministry of Home Affairs failed to properly examine the material placed before it.
The Court directed the Ministry to reconsider the officer’s application for voluntary retirement afresh within three months. The bench observed that although the Centre has the final authority to accept or reject a voluntary retirement request from an All India Services officer, such power must be exercised after proper application of mind.
Background of the Case
Abdur Rahman, a 1997-batch IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre, had applied for voluntary retirement on August 1, 2019 under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.
At that time, three complaints were pending against him, including allegations relating to a second marriage, personal misconduct, and a speech delivered during the launch of his book “Denial and Deprivation.”
The Maharashtra Government, in October 2019, recommended acceptance of his request after recording that no major penalty was likely to be imposed in the pending matters. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the request, stating that disciplinary proceedings were “pending or contemplated” and therefore the officer was not clear from the vigilance angle.
Rahman challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal and later before the Bombay High Court, but both forums upheld the Centre’s stand.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Central Government’s powers under Rule 16(2A) and clarified that the Centre is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation while deciding a voluntary retirement request.
“The voluntary severance of employee-employer relationship pursuant to a VRS notice requires Central Government’s acceptance,” the bench observed.
At the same time, the Court stressed that the Centre’s discretion cannot be exercised mechanically. It said the decision-making process must reflect proper consideration of the available record and the State Government’s assessment.
The bench noted that on the date when the Centre rejected the VRS request, no formal charge sheet had been issued against the officer. It further held that merely having complaints on record does not automatically mean disciplinary proceedings are genuinely “contemplated.”
According to the Court, only one of the three complaints could reasonably be treated as being under contemplation at the relevant time. The judges found that the Centre did not adequately deal with the State Government’s opinion that no major penalty was likely.
The Court also expressed concern over the prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings initiated later. It recorded that some charge sheets were issued years after the original complaints and inquiry officers were appointed after considerable delay.
Calling the manner in which the proceedings were handled “unacceptable,” the bench said unexplained delay in disciplinary action can itself cause prejudice to an officer.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ order dated October 25, 2019 rejecting Rahman’s request for voluntary retirement.
The Court directed the Ministry to reconsider the IPS officer’s VRS application afresh by taking into account all relevant facts, including the subsequent developments in the disciplinary proceedings.
The bench ordered that the fresh decision must be taken within three months. It also clarified that the officer would be free to pursue legal remedies available under law against any future order passed by the Ministry.
Case Details
Case Title: Abdur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21390 of 2024
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: May 26, 2026
