Strict construction of security rules limits compulsory retirement unless the employee is directly linked to subversive activity.

Rule 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 applies only where a government servant is himself engaged in, or reasonably suspected of being engaged in, subversive activities, or is associated with others in a manner that raises doubts about reliability. A charge alleging only association with persons said to be involved in subversive activities does not satisfy that threshold. Because the provision is penal in character, it must be strictly construed. On the facts stated, the compulsory-retirement procedure based on Rule 3 could not be validly sustained, and the service action was not lawfully terminated under the Security Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's compulsory retirement was valid when the charge alleged only association with persons engaged in subversive activities and not that he himself was engaged in, or reasonably suspected of being engaged in, subversive activities under the Security Rules.

Analysis: Rule 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 applies only where a government servant is engaged in subversive activities, reasonably suspected of being so engaged, or associated with others in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about reliability. The charge framed against the appellant did not allege that he was himself engaged in, or reasonably suspected of being engaged in, subversive activities; it only alleged association with others who were said to be engaged in such activities. The provision, being penal in character, had to be strictly construed, and the charge as framed did not fit within its terms. Since Rule 3 was not attracted, the compulsory-retirement procedure founded upon it could not validly be sustained.

Conclusion: The charge did not fall within Rule 3, and the appellant's service was not lawfully terminated under the Security Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A punitive service action under a security rule must strictly conform to the precise statutory grounds stated in the rule, and an allegation of association with persons engaged in subversive activities is not enough unless the employee himself is alleged to be engaged in, or reasonably suspected of being engaged in, such activities.

---