https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172382 Compulsory retirement under Note (1) to Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 required the exact reason to be recorded in writing, and a note stating impairment of efficiency satisfied that requirement. The expression "such as" was treated as illustrative, so the listed public grounds were not exhaustive, and a separate observation that a formal charge of inefficiency was undesirable was only a prefatory opinion, not an additional reason. The record of persistent adverse material and deterioration in service efficiency did not establish mala fides. On that reasoning, the retirement order was upheld and the challenge failed. en-us Tue, 06 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:48:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172382 Compulsory retirement under Note (1) to Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 required the exact reason to be recorded in writing, and a note stating impairment of efficiency satisfied that requirement. The expression "such as" was treated as illustrative, so the listed public grounds were not exhaustive, and a separate observation that a formal charge of inefficiency was undesirable was only a prefatory opinion, not an additional reason. The record of persistent adverse material and deterioration in service efficiency did not establish mala fides. On that reasoning, the retirement order was upheld and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172382