Advanced Search Results

Ex. L/Nk Vimal Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 26, 48, 70 and 117(2); ;Army Act; ;Army Rules - Rules 115, 115(2), 115(2A) and 125; ;Navy Act; ;Armed Forces Act; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 33(2), 43, 45, 45B, 46, 48(3), 49, 51, 62, 81, 81(3), 101, 101(3), 142, 142(2) and 157; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1965 - Rules 48(3), 49(2) and 49(3); ;Constitution of India - Article 14

(hereinafter referred to 'SSFC' for brevity) finding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to 'BSF Act' for brevity) and the sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner also assails … the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and that, consequently, the respondents followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 142(2) of the BSF rules. No evidence was recorded by the Summary Security Force Court. After recording a plea

Ravi Paul and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rules 8, 113(3) and 116; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 2, 4, 141(1), 141(2) and 142; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 9 and 14(2); Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants) Recruitment Rules, 1969; Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants) Recruitment (Repeal) Rules, 1973; Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation) Rules, 1978 - Rule 3; Constitution of India - Article 32

Reported in : JT1995(1)SC579; 1995LabIC405; 1995(1)SCALE261; (1995)3SCC300; [1995]1SCR419; 1995(2)SLJ205(SC); 1995(1)LC571(SC)

Assistant Principal Central Training College in the Central Reserve Police Force. On September 2, 1968, Parliament enacted the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF Act') to provide for the Constitution and regulation of an armed force … of service (including deductions from pay and allowances) of the members of the Force. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 142 members of the Border Security Force in existence at the commencement of the Act are deemed to have

Chokha Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 19, 21, 21(1), 21(2) and 22; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 48, 48(3), 49(3), 51, 59 to 64, 142(1), 142(2) and 157

Reported in : 110(2004)DLT268; 2004(73)DRJ450; 2004(3)SLJ44(Delhi)

all subjected to any cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner. 8. In terms of Section 21 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, where any person subject to the Act who disobeys in such manner as to show a willful defiance … irregularities were committed by SSFC in as much as the proceedings were conducted in breach of Rules 63(1), 142(1) & (2) & 157 of the BSF Rules; (b) that the column specifically provided for recording plea of

Mahender Singh (Ex. Const) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 117; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 142 and 142(2)

Reported in : 2008(104)DRJ749

tenor of what is recorded is almost verbatim of what is required as per Rule 142 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules'). Rule 142 reads as under:142. General plea of 'Guilty' … to consider afresh the statutory petition filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 117 of the BSF Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and pass appropriate orders, The Director General, BSF was also directed

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Rules - Rule 142 and 142(2); ;Border Security Force Act - Sections 18(1) and 80

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ381

dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 18.11.1999. This punishment was imposed under section 18(1) of the Border Security Force Act 1968. As far as the commission of offence under Section 376/452 RPC is concerned, the authority i. e. the … observed. His plea of guilt has been recorded by the Summary Security Force Court in accordance with Rule 142 and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be interfered. He has further submitted that under

Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226;; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 14, 16, 17, 40, 46,47, 74, 74(1)(2), 115, 116, 117 and 167(2);; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 51(2), 142(2), 143, 143(2), 145, 147, 148, 149, 157 and 159

Reported in : (1999)2CALLT107(HC)

Admittedly the charges against the petitioner came within the purview of section 16(d) and section 46 of the Border Security Force Act which read thus :--'16. Offences punishable more severely on active duty than at other times--any person subject to … Randhir Singh of this unit has been charged with an Offences under section 16(d) and 40 of BSF Act 1968 committed on 10.3.92 at BOP Bornberia at about 21.30 hrs. left the said picauet without orders from his … plea of guilty, accepts and records the same. The provisions of Rule 142(2) are complied with.'17. However, from the records it does not appear that

Union of India and Others Vs. Andnd Singh Bisht

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 106; Constitution of India - Article 142; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 5 and 475

Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)557; AIR1997SC361; (1997)1CALLT41(SC); 1996CriLJ4435; 1996(6)SCALE357; (1996)10SCC153; [1996]Supp5SCR306

Naik in the Border Security Force. For injuring one cadet Raj Kishore Singh, he was tried under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to

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 … to any charge. Rules 140 thereof provides for amendment of charge. Rule 142 specifies the procedures when a plea of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' is … 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

Babu Joseph Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Border Security Force (Subordinate Officers and Under Officers Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1975 - Rules 7, 8, 9, 13(2), 18(2), 19(1), 20, 119(1) and 129; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rules 123, 124, 125, 136(5) and 136(6); Central Reserve Police Force (Amendment) Rules, 1967 - Rule 118; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 14A(2)

Reported in : 1990MPLJ417

and it is necessary, therefore, to state clearly the position in that regard at the very outset. The Border Security Force Act, 1968, for short, 1968 Act, takes care to indicate vide section 142(1) the fact of prior existence of the

Baljinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Service

Reported in : 2006(3)SLJ392(P& H)

decision of the Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 along with an application under Section 130 of the Act for suspension of the sentence imposed upon him. … effect of his plea of guilty to the charge particularly the difference in procedure.The provisions of BSF Rule 142(2) are complied with.6. The proceedings further reveal that after the petitioner had been found guilty of the charge,