Advanced Search Results

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

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. B.N. Jha

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 16(7), 45B and 46; Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226; Army Act; Border Security Force Act - Sections 2(1), 5, 14 to 45, 48 and 141; Navy Act; Armed Forces Act

Reported in : AIR2003SC1416; 2003(3)AWC1948(SC); (2003)3CALLT15(SC); [2003(97)FLR1034]; 2003(3)JKJ41[SC]; JT2003(3)SC201; 2003(3)SCALE8; (2003)4SCC531; [2003]2SCR721; 2003(2)SLJ395(SC);

for interfering with the impugned judgment in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.; Border Security Force Act, 1968 Sections 5, 41, 48, 49, 64, 65, 68, 72, 107 and 108 - Border Security Force Rules, 1969 … the description referred to in that provision;2(1)(h) 'Deputy Inspector-General' means a Deputy Inspector-General of the Force appointed under Section 5;2(1)(n) 'Inspector-General' means the Inspector-General of the Force appointed under Section 5;5. Control, direction etc. (1) The general … respondent had accepted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his recruitment. On 16.7.1990 one Mr. Raj Singh, Deputy Commandant reported to the Commandant, Mr. J.S.

Sudesh Kumar Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 62

Reported in : 1997(42)DRJ623

that disciplinary action would be taken against him. Thereafter a Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 was ordered to inquire into the absence of the petitioner, but without awaiting the outcome thereof, it appears … Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Order, Annexure P-3/A, dated 27.1.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 16th January, 1993 is under challenge in this petition. (2) The petitioner while posted as a Constable in Border

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 … petitioner:-"Charge No.1 BSF ACT SECTION-40 AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDERS AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE (At about 1630 hrs on 08.04.1996 at B.S. Bari BOP picked up quarrel with Bus Driver, Conductor and passengers of NBSTC

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 … 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 … The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that Sections 162 and 121 of the Army Act, 1950 are in pari material with

Union of India and Another Vs. O.P. Bishnoi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 13; Constitution of India - Article 226; Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rules 45 and 46

Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)937; 2000(54)DRJ264

matter on merits. Investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by a person subject to the Border Security Force Act 1968 (for short 'the Act') is dealt with under chapters V to VII of the Rules. For the present … learned Single Judge was that the respondent was tried by General Security Force Court on a charge under Section 31(b) of the Border Security Force Act (for short the Act) namely :- without proper authority extract from … or authority to convene a court for the trial of the accused. 16. The Commandant, after applying his mind to the material collected by way

B.V. Ramnarayan Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules - Rule 92; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11(2)

Reported in : 1996(4)ALT753; (1997)ILLJ1007AP

in the Border Security Force was dismissed from service by the Commandant acting under Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 on the ground that he was a deserter, without holding enquiry. Before the Supreme Court, the questions were … to the earlier representation. Along with the said representation, the petitioner also enclosed a medical certificate dated July 16, 1983 issued by Dr. Umeshchander, Assistant Cardiologist, Osmania General Hospital. The petitioner requested the Chief Regional Manager to

Comdt. Atul Kumar Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Section 117(2); Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227

the finding and sentence of the Security Force Court in terms of the provisions of Section 107 of Border Security Force Act, 1968. 20. Aggrieved by the finding and sentence awarded by the Security Force Court which stood confirmed by the … HC/Driver Ram Babu and he left the gypsy of the petitioner in the custody of HC/Driver Ram Babu. 16. Const./Driver Paran Chand Koch PW-15, deposed that he was entrusted with the charge of the gypsy bearing registration

Mohinder Singh Malik and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 9 and 14A; ;Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) (Amendment) Rules, 1998; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ73

dated 27.5.1998, purportingly issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, Rule 9 of the 1978 Rules was amended so as to provide for the age of superannuation of … the lower ranks in the Border Security Force as 57 years is un-constitutional, violative of Articles 14 & 16 and as such, liable to be struck down. The age of superannuation of the Border Security personnel, whatever

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,