E-Paper
Tribunal asks Chandigarh to review GMCH-32 professor’s voluntary retirement request
The tribunal accepted the contention and observed that there was no chargesheet, pending disciplinary proceeding, relevant judicial proceeding or suspension against the professor
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, has directed the Chandigarh administration to reconsider its April 7 order to defer the voluntary retirement request of a Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32 (GMCH-32) professor on the ground that three vigilance complaints were pending against him.
The tribunal directed the authorities to reconsider and accept the voluntary retirement notice of Dr Varinder Saini, professor in the department of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at GMCH-32, in accordance with Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, which governs voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying service.
Saini, who has completed around 36 years of government service and was otherwise due to retire on February 28, 2027, had sought voluntary retirement in February this year. His request was processed by the authorities, but vigilance clearance became an issue after three complaints against him were brought to their notice.
The complaints were dated November 13, November 18 and December 2, 2024. Enquiries had been initiated into the complaints, but final enquiry reports were still awaited, according to the order. Subsequently, the competent authority, through an order dated April 7, 2026, deferred consideration of his voluntary retirement request till the outcome of the vigilance complaints.
Challenging the decision before the tribunal, Saini argued that the mere pendency of vigilance complaints could not be treated as a bar to voluntary retirement. He contended that under Rule 43, voluntary retirement can be withheld in specified circumstances, including where an employee is under suspension or where disciplinary or judicial proceedings meeting the prescribed conditions are pending.
The tribunal accepted the contention and observed that there was no chargesheet, pending disciplinary proceeding, relevant judicial proceeding or suspension against the professor. The mere pendency of vigilance complaints, therefore, could not by itself justify withholding his voluntary retirement request, the order held.
The CAT consequently quashed the April 7 order and directed the authorities to reconsider the professor’s voluntary retirement notice and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the tribunal’s order.
