Advanced Search Results

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Devi Lal Sahu

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

leave. The writ-petitioner submitted that on 28.10.2003, he was served with a charge-sheet under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 ('the BSF Act') and was placed under close arrest at Headquarter 20 Bn. Barmer on 29.10.2003; and that

Ex.Uttam Navik Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

under Rule 149 of the BSF Rules, 1969 or by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. In the said case, the Supreme Court had carefully examined the provisions of Rule 149 of the Border … This order was intimated to the petitioner’scounsel by letter dated 20th August, 1997. W.P(C) No.496/2004 Page 6 of 28 11. The petitioner has challenged his order of dismissal dated 6th June, 1997 and order of dismissal of

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 … Security Force Rules, 1969. Petitioner was participating in anti-militancy operational duty in sensitive area of Village Dedha on 28. 5. 1998 when he was found missing from other troops at about 1630 Hrs alongwith his arms/ammunition for

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

Ajai Kumar Roy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CriminalConstitution

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 101; Borders Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 40; Constitution of India - Article 21

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3999

to two years or such less punishment as is in the Act mentioned. 13. Section 28 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 is also a verbatim reproduction of Section 50 of the Army Act. Section 50 of the Army Act

Union of India and Others Vs. Ex Constable Mohinder Singh (Deceased No ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 2(1), 5, 14, 17, 20, 28, 46, 48, 70, 74, 117; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 16, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 139, 149(3 & 4), 157, 158, 167; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 350 and 351; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 33, 137 and 323-A; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reported in : 91(2001)DLT291

enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Constable in April 1988 and became subject to the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter the Act). and Border Security Force Rules (hereinafter the Rules). In October 1993 he was posted in … and other assailant Constables named above, were then tried by a Summary Force Court for committing offence under Section 20(a) of the Act. They were held guilty of the offence charged with and were convicted. While the … Constable Vijay Bahadur as under.'USING CRIMINAL FORCE TO HIS SUPERIOROFFICER BSF ACTSec. 28(a)in that they, at bn, HQ SB-I located with campus of 06 PAC

S.A. Qadir Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Reported in : 2000(2)WLN635

the appellant is that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 40 reads:40. Violation of good order and discipline-Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any … disprove mens rea has been succinctly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Col. 10 at p. 283, thus:When the existence of a particular intend or state of mind is a necessary ingredient of the offence,

Shri Chandram J.M. S/O Shri Jettappa Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 to 46, 48, 48(1), 49, 50, 64, 70 and 117; Central Police Act, 1949; Army Regulations; Army Rules; Central Civil Services Pension Rules - Rule 25; Pension Rules - Rules 3 and 25; Constitution of India - Articles 22 and 311

Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ303; 2007(6)AIRKarR441; 2008LabIC(NOC)83(Kar)

dismissed.34. Petitioner is a Member of the Border Security Force which is a paramilitary force created under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. This Force was part of Central Police Act, 1949. It was given a separate identity as Border Security … of the Force, but also for bringing disrepute to the Force which is an offence in terms of Section 40 of the Act3. Such action had been taken as a follow up on the complaint lodged by … regularized as per rules.6. The operative portion of the appellate order dated 28.5.2005 [copy at Annexure-D] reads as under:Therefore, I commute the sentence to three

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 … Nanda, Advocate for the respondent in extenso.2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 2174/2001, dismissing the writ petition.3. Setting in the facts

Sunil Kumar Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Civil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), 19 and 62; ;Border Security Rules, 1969 - Rules 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 20(6), 21, 22, 22(2), 28A, 48, 49, 167, 168, 170 to 176 and 177; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1968 - Rules 20, 21, 22(2) and 177

Reported in : 2005(3)JKJ159

Dias non. This order has been challenged on the ground that no inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with rules 170 to 176 of the Border Security Rules, 1969 was held against him. He was … Petitioner received a show cause notice No. Estt/105 Bn/99-2000/482 dated 27th January 2000 asking him to report on 28-2-2000. It is alleged that he joined the Unit on 28-2-2002 and also submitted affidavit as also the certificate