Advanced Search Results

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay vs the Director General

Court : Kerala

free accommodation was not available at the unit. It is contended that as per Rule 61(2) of the CISF Rules, 2001, accommodation to the enrolled member of the Force shall be rent free but where such facilities are … that the petitioner's request for Transport Allowance and HRA had been considered in terms of Rule 61(1)of the CISF Rules, 2001. It is submitted that since no government family accommodation had been provided by the Cochin International Airport

G.Chinnasamy Vs. the Assistant Commandant

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

would not have been framed against him. Since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, for imposition of minor penalty, the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the statement of the witnesses … for conducting an oral enquiry and since the Departmental Proceedings came to be initiated under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001, for imposition of minor penalty, there is no need to hold oral enquiry in the presence of

S.N. Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19 and 226; ;Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 3A, 29A and 34(4); ;Central Industrial Security Force Act - Sections 2 and 4

Reported in : (2004)1CALLT565(HC),[2004(102)FLR33]

free and fair.7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as per Rule 34 of the CISF Rules 1969 Enquiry Officer is bound to submit the finding on the basis of the materials on record and … counsel appearing for the respondents the Inspector conducted the enquiry proceeding is competent as per Rule 34(4) of CISF Rules 1969. As per this specification made in Schedule II in terms of Rule 29A of the CISF Rules,

Jivanbhai Shivabhai Garoda Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Service

Acts : Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 4 to 8, 24, 25, 29, 34 to 36, 37, 40, 41 to 50, 50(3), 51 and 59; Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 4, 7, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 8(2A), 9, 10, 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 16, 18, 22, 22(2); Constitution of India - Articles 310, 311 and 311(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973; Bombay Police Act, - Sections 26; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 309

Reported in : (2005)1GLR1

flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. They submit that Rule 34, Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969 (CISF Rules 1969) prescribes procedure for inflicting penalty, but the same was not followed, and punishment of dismissal from service … prescribed for holding inquiry, therefore, the disciplinary authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 37(b) of CISF Rules 1969 imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioners, the reasons are recorded in the original record

Union of India and anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149, 161, 332, 333 and 420; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 60; Constitution of India - Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31, 31A(1), 31B, 31C, 32, 33, 74(1), 74(2), 124, 146(1), 148(1), 148(5), 154, 163(1), 163(3), 218, 226, 227, 229, 282B, 308, 309, 310, 310(1), 310(2), 311, 311(2), 311(3), 324(1) and 324(5); Constitution of India (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976; Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rules 14, 17, 20, 22(2), 25 and 25-A; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rules 19, 22, 23, 25, 27(2), 29 and 29-A; Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 37, 42, 42-A, 47(2) and 49

Reported in : AIR1985SC1416; (1985)87BOMLR563; (1985)3CompLJ45(SC); [1985(51)FLR362]; (1985)IILLJ206SC; 1985(2)SCALE133; (1985)3SCC398; [1985]Supp2SCR131; 1985(2)SLJ145(SC)

and Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the CISF Rules'). It was submitted on behalf of the government servants that though an Act or rule restricting or taking

Arun Kumar Nigam Vs Dig. Genl. Central Industry Security Fores and ors ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Delhi Police

Acts : Delhi Police Act, 1979 - Sections 21 ; Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 21 ,1.

be enquired into, were repatriated to the CISF and thereafter, the departmental inquiry had been held under the CISF Rules, 1969.21. It is urged that on account of his conduct being enquired into by an incompetent authority and … Government in respect of such matters.30. Before us, it has been urged that for the reason that the CISF Rules made no provision with regard to disciplinary proceedings against deputationists, in view of Rule 70 of the then

Ram Padarth Tiwari Vs. The Union of India, Through the Secretary of Mi ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

act of illegal gratification was prima facie established against the petitioner, a chargesheet under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was served upon the petitioner. g) It is admitted that the charge of illegal gratification was not … of the nature of carrying extra money in his pocket. 15. Chapter 10- Penalties and Procedure under the CISF Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) provides for Disciplinary Authorities and nature of penalties. The said Chapter

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 34 and 49

Reported in : [2007(115)FLR392]; 2008(2)SLJ254(Delhi)

does not submit any written reply on or before the due date an enquiry under Rule 34 of CISF Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF Rules') would be proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner.4. On 09.03.1992 Enquiry Officer … or before the due date an enquiry under Rule 34 of CISF Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF Rules') would be proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner.4. On 09.03.1992 Enquiry Officer was appointed by Respondent No. 4 to

D.L. Sharma Vs. D.S. Shukla, and or His Succesor in Office and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Service

Acts : Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 31, 34, 34(1), 34(9), 34(10) and 49A; Constitution of India - Article 226; Punjab National Bank Employees (Disciplinary Appeal) Rules, 1977 - Rule 7 and 7(2); Punjab National Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 - Regulations 6 and 7(2); State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Services Rules - Rule 50(3)

Reported in : 2008GLH(1)310; (2008)2GLR1064

to the date of reinstatement to service as DIES NON under the provisions of Rule 49-A of the CISF Rules, 1969 and not to pay any pay and allowances for the said period to the petitioner, on the … to the date of reinstatement to service as DIES NON under the provisions of Rule 49-A of the CISF Rules, 1969 and not to pay any pay and allowances for the said period to the petitioner. The petitioner

Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 8; Central Industrial Security Force Act Rules, 1969 - Rule 47(2)

Reported in : 39(1989)DLT324

is that the petitioner was governed by the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF Rules, 1969') whereas charge sheet was served upon him under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 … of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965'. My attention has further been. drawn to Cisf Rules, 1969. Rule 29 thereof lays down as under : 'RULES governing discipline--(1) Supervisory owners shall' be governed by