GOPALMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right conferred by Rule 244(2) is intended to be exercised only against a Government servant whose efficiency is impaired, but against whom it is not desirable to make formal charges of inefficiency or who has ceased to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on compassionate allowance. It is not the intention to use this rule as financial weapon, that is to say, the provisions should be used only in the case of Government servants who are considered unfit for retention on personal as opposed to financial grounds.

(2.) Compulsory retirement under this rule does not attract the provisions of clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution because such retirement is not conceived as a penalty but as the exercise of a right reserved to Government of retiring a Government servant after he has served for a certain length of time. Accordingly, the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules for formal proceedings against Government servants before removing them from service is not meant to apply to such cases.

(3.) This Rule is also applicable to Government servants who are members of a Contributory Provident Fund. In their cases, the term "qualifying service" shall mean service commencing on the day a Government servant started subscribing towards Contributory Provident Fund."