https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183478 Compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was held not to require submission to the Governor under Rule 31(vii)(a), because that rule, read with its surrounding clauses, was confined to penal dismissals, removals and compulsory retirement as a penalty. The court also held that an executive order is not invalid merely for want of the formal wording required by Article 166 if the competent Government in substance made the decision; the file showed the requisite governmental approval, and the mode of communication did not change the source of authority. The compulsory retirement order was therefore upheld as valid governmental action. en-us Thu, 24 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183478 Compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was held not to require submission to the Governor under Rule 31(vii)(a), because that rule, read with its surrounding clauses, was confined to penal dismissals, removals and compulsory retirement as a penalty. The court also held that an executive order is not invalid merely for want of the formal wording required by Article 166 if the competent Government in substance made the decision; the file showed the requisite governmental approval, and the mode of communication did not change the source of authority. The compulsory retirement order was therefore upheld as valid governmental action. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183478