Advanced Search Results

Narendra Bahadur Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Subject : Education

the High Court has also to be added to the period of sentence under Section 133 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, which reads as under:“133. Computation of period of suspension :- Any period during which the sentence is under … of sentence under the orders of this Court cannot be added to the period of sentence as per Section 134 of the Act which also reads as under:“134. Order after suspension :- The authority or officer specified in

Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 15, 16, 40, 45, 47, 63, 70, 75, 83, 87, 115, 120, 121, 153 and 164(2); Evidence Act - Sections 3, 4 and 87; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 22, 25, 45, 47, 62, 63, 64, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143 to 145, 147, 148, 149, 153 and 161(1); Constitution of India - Articles 20, 20(2), 21, 33, 121, 226 and 227; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 121 and 162; Court Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951; Court Martial (Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1968; Uniform Code of Military justice Act, 1950; Administration of Justice Act, 1968; Military Justice Act, 1968; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 193 and 228; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 480 and 482

Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ151(Delhi)

is also entitled to costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-._ Service - discharge - Sections 87 of Border Security Force Act, 1968 - dismissal Order and punishment challenged on ground of violation of fair trial - 'A' witness in proceeding … had been laid down in Chapter XI of the BSF Rules. Rule 134 of the BSF Rules provides for translation of evidence. Rule 135 thereof … the same had not been made part of the proceedings.The learned counsel would contend that in terms of Section 87 of the BSF Act, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would apply and in that view

Balwinder Singh Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Border Security Force

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rule 53(2) ; Sections 40, 26, 117, 53, 5575

consider the statutory position with regard to persons subjected to the Border Security Force. Section 70 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act hereafter) provides the constitution of a Summary Security Force Court (`SSFC' hereafter). It is permitted under … it is contended, the petitioner has been denied.17. It has also been objected by the petitioner that Rule 134 of the BSF Rules was also violated for the reason that the evidence was not recorded in a

Ex. Ct. Madan Mohan vs.union of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

sentenced to dismissal from service vide Annexure P-5 (Colly) as well as Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General Border Security Force letter dated Feb 2005, upholding the said findings and sentence. W.P. (C) 4810/2015 Page 1 of 28 (ii) … was appointed though, no affirming of the interpreter, as required under Rules 134 and 136 of the BSF Act, 1968 and Rules, 1969 was carried out; (ii) petitioner was not provided with the copy of statement of witnesses; … For certain acts, the petitioner was proceeded by SSFC on charges under Section 20(b), 20(c), 19(f) and 26 of the BSF Act, which resulted in

Dharambir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

appended.15. Considering the Record of Evidence the Commandant opined that the petitioner should be tried at a Summary Security Force Court and for which he drew up a charge-sheet on May 09, 2000 and served the same upon … Ct.Rajesh Sharma and he were directed by the petitioner to check the border fencing and patrol the naka point. Accordingly, they left the naka point … the same upon the petitioner on the same day. The charge-sheet reads as under:“ I. BSF ACT - 1968 SECTION - 16 (d) LEAVING HIS PIQUET WITHOUT ORDERS FROM HIS SUPERIOR OFFICE In that he, at Naka duty … Court acted as an Interpreter is neither here nor there because Rule 134(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 requires the Court to either appoint an

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Security Force Court (for short ‘SSFC’) and was found guilty of the charge under Section 16(c) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSF Act’). The petitioner was dismissed from service and on the same date, … the judgment of this Court in the case of Banarsi Lal Yadav v. Union of India reported as 134 (2006) DLT353(DB):“Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, we are of the considered view that the question

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Security Force Court (for short ‘SSFC’) and was found guilty of the charge under Section 16(c) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSF Act’). The petitioner was dismissed from service and on the same date, … the judgment of this Court in the case of Banarsi Lal Yadav v. Union of India reported as 134 (2006) DLT353(DB):“Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, we are of the considered view that the question

Commissioner of Customs versus M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

Reported in : [2024]12S.C.R.202

27.04.1974 which entrusted functions of customs officer to police officers in a particular jurisdiction and officers of the Border Security Force respectively. However, in the case of DRI officers, they would clearly fall under Sections 3, 4 and 5 … Functions of the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India “, 4th Edition, 1968, pages 68-70 (Annexure R XIII). As the work of Directorates of Inspection … v. Union of India, 1971 SCC OnLine Del 134; Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and Anr. v. Coffee Board, … of law; whether officers of DRI are the proper officers for the purposes of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the introduction of s.28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause … Such entrustment could be either conditional or unconditional - Object of this Section is to confer powers of search, seizure, arrest and recording of statements,

Murari Kumar Singh vs Union of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

the service with full salary.”2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are that the petitionerenrolled in Border Security Force (‘BSF’, for short) as Constable on 31.03.2008. During his service, he was awarded commendation certificate for operational achievement … day, he was informed that, he has been held guilty of charges under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 for firing 01 round without any provocation and under Section 22(e) of the Act for being in the … were not translated to the petitioner, which is in violation of Rule 134 of BSF Rules. He also contended that, a fair trial cannot be

Devender Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

by this Court be paid within four weeks. With these directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. Border Security Force Act 1968 - Section 22-E and 40 - Difference between “misconduct reinstatement” and illegal termination - misconduct reinstatement refers to … v. Union of India and Ors.; 172 (2010) DLT 200, Balwinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors.; 134 (2006) DLT 353, Banwari Lal Yadav v. Union of India and Anr.; W.P.(C) No.14098/2009, Ex. Constable Vijender Singh