Advanced Search Results

M.Z.H. Khan Vs. Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 3(4), 26, 27, 56, 56(A), 63, 71, 116, 122, 130, 164(2), 169, 169(1), 169(3) and 169(4); Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 33, 33(7), 34, 34(1), 34(2), 36, 106 to 133, 184 and 203; Constitution of India - Article 22(I)

Reported in : 2001(4)AWC2794; (2001)3UPLBEC2202

three months in civil jail,(b) to be dismissed from service.4. Petitioner filed statutory petition under Section 164(2) of Army Act, 1950, which was kept pending and not decided hence the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 37038 of 1998. … Army Rules, 1954.(iii) Petitioner was denied assistance of a civil lawyer which is violation of provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and the law as laid down by this Court in 1993 AWC 883.(iv) Petitioner

Ex-signalman Shri Bhagwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secreta ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13(3), 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 to 25 and 27; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 22, 191, 191(2) and 192; Army Pension Regulations, 1961 - Regulations 12, 20, 21, 22, 165, 167, 173, 173A, 183, 185, 187 and 188; defense Service Regulation; Medical Services of the Armed Forces Medical, 1962; General Regulations - Sections 1; Service Pension and Gratuity Regulations - Sections 2 and 3; Disability Pensionary Awards Regulations - Sections 4; Special Pensionary Awards Regulations - Sections 5; Entitlement Rules, 1961 - Rule 7; Army/Air Force Act; Entitlement (Amendment) Rules, 1982; Customs Act, 1962; Central Excises Act, 1944

Reported in : 103(2003)DLT269; 2003(3)SLJ303(Delhi)

them. Certain procedures have been laid down in various documents about which very few people seem to be aware.Army Act, 1950 13. Retirement, release or discharge of Army personnel is provided for in Section 22 of the Army Act,

Jay Shiv Kushwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 20(2); Army Act, 1950 - Sections 22, 39 and 121; ;Army Rules - Rule 13

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1969; (2002)3UPLBEC2098

12th November, 2001, after being absent for 53 days; 10 days rigorous imprisonment under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Army Act) was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from service with … petitioner of absenting without leave. Chapter IV of the Army Act contains provisions relating to condition of service. Section 22 provides for retirement, release or discharge. Section 22 lays down that any person subject to Army Act may

Ex. Rect. Lachhman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 80 and 120(3); ;Army Rule, 1954 - Rules 22, 22(1), 115, 115(2), 115(2A), 129 and 180

Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ237(Delhi)

the charge. Next that though the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950, but was not given any opportunity to take help of a legal practitioner as the trial was of … contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before recording of summary of Evidence the provisions of Rule 22 of the Army Rule 1954 i.e. statement of all witnesses should be taken by the Commanding Officer in

Lalloo Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 22 and 33; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 21; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 22 and 129

Reported in : 2004(3)AWC2752

Havaldar (OPR) in 129 AD Regiment when he was charge-sheeted for two offences under Section 40(c) of the Army Act, 1950. He was tried by a Summary Court Martial and was awarded the following punishment :(a) to be reduced … all the other punishments were left in tact.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 was not complied with, inasmuch as, the charges were not heard by the

Ram Sunder Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 12, 13, 13(3) and 177; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 20, 22, 23, 63 and 191

Reported in : JT2007(9)SC159; 2007(9)SCALE197; 2008(2)SLJ23(SC)

found guilty of prejudicial act to good order and military discipline, was charged under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 [for short 'the Army Act']. On 08.08.1989, Major H.S. Dhillon, Presiding Officer, Summary of Evidence, sent a letter … the authority empowered under Rule 13 of the Army Rules has passed the order of discharge simpliciter under Section 22 of the Army Act and Section 20 appears to have been wrongly mentioned by the authority in the

Harpal Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 52; Army Rules, 1950 - Rule 22; Constitution of India - Article 21

Reported in : 1996(37)DRJ390

General had been duly empowered. The said circular reads as under:- 'IN pursuance of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950), the Central Government is hereby pleased to empower you, or the officer on whom your … it was posted at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. For the administrative purposes, the Company was divided in to six sections, i.e., (1) Mechanical Transport Section (2) Radio Section (3) Cipher, Section (4) Ammunition and Weaponry Section (5) Clothing … J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order of this Court for

Sheel Kr. Roy Vs. Secretary M/O Defence and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 71 and 116; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 22; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21

Reported in : 2007(2)JKJ64[SC]; 2007(7)SCALE530; 2007AIRSCW4111; JT2007(7)SC485

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation and application of some provisions of the Army Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules') arises for … be an eye-wash.(ii) Imposition of two punishments, viz., rigorous imprisonment as also dismissal from service is violative of Section 39 read with Section 71 of the Act.(iii) Appellant having been found to be not fit for being … Chandigarh, Allahabad, Jabalpur and Ambala.3. In the Medical Board proceedings held on 22.4.1987, the appellant was put in medical category 'CEE' wherein it was opined:This

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. V.N. Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 1, 2, 37, 122, 122(1), 123, 153, 154 and 160; ;Constitution of India - Article 226; ;Army Rules - Rules 22 and 177; ;Defence Service Regulations

the respondent by Court Martial was time barred in view of the provisions of Section 122(1)(b) of the Army Act, 1950.2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:The respondent i.e. Mr. V.N. Singh who … the order dated June 14, 1997 passed by Mr. K.K. Verma, the then Major General, General Officer Commanding, 22 Infantry Division, directing the General Court Martial to re-assemble in open Court at Meerut on June 28, 1997

Colonel D.D. Pawar, C-25415-a Vs. Commander Hq Andhra Sub-area, Secund ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 1, 2, 3, 19, 34 to 70, 71, 80 to 85, 109, 118, 122, 122(1), 122(3), 191(1) and 191(2); Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 14, 22, 22(2), 53, 70 and 177 to 185; Army (Amendment) Act, 1992; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 469 and 469(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 113, 545 and 621; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Reported in : 2001(5)ALD56; 2001(5)ALT52

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A common question as to the interpretation of Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity) falls for consideration in both these appeals and hence they are being disposed of … other learned Counsel, submits that during Staff Court of Inquiry summary of evidence was recorded as per Rule 22 of the rules and after perusing the summary of evidence the Commandant of the AOC Centre has exonerated