Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 28 irregularity in connection with arrest or confinement Page 9 of about 150 results (0.383 seconds)

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

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 116(2005)DLT607; 2005(80)DRJ263; 2006(2)SLJ240(Delhi)

..... appear to have had no sobering effect on the petitioner and his erratic behavioral pattern witnessed no improvement even on his posting to a sensitive area close to the international border. indiscipline breeds indiscipline. any disciplined force can ill-afford to acquiesce the acts of indiscipline by a soft paddling approach when enforcing discipline with an iron hand is dire need in all eventualities. no doubt, dismissal from service represents an extreme penalty ..... state of intoxication. of course, a report from a doctor on medical examination of the petitioner would have been a better piece of evidence to establish the aforesaid facts however, absence thereof cannot be used as a ground to unsettle the finding of the summary security force court holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.12. in the face of the statements of witnesses examined in the course of record of evidence, coupled with the petitioner's own statement, to contend that finding of guilty lacks basis is difficult to .....

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

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... provisions of border security act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder. the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under section 40 of the bsf act i.e. to say 'an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force'. the first plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments was that in the impugned order of dismissal passed by security force court, no reasons have been given for coming to the conclusion of 'guilty' as against the petitioner. according to rule 99 of border security force act, 1961, ..... petition. our attention has not been drawn to any rules framed under border security force rules similar to rule 99 which provide for recording of reasons now as discussed above in case of finding of guilty or not guilty by security force court. thus, it is clear that there are no rules prescribed that the appellate authority under section 117(1) of the act has to record any reasons similar to the provisions under rule 99. however, the .....

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

Court : Delhi

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

..... spite of a movement order the petitioner had refused to proceed to `a' coy and his entire statement went unchallenged as he was not at 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 of authority any lawful command given personally by his superior officer, whether orally or in writing or by signal or otherwise, the same constitutes an offence and such a person be liable to be ..... b.n. chaturvedi, j.1. the petitioner, a constable in border security force(bsf), was on 11th of february, 2002, at about 8.00 p.m. ordered by assistant commandant, shri rajiv bhardwaj, company commander, to proceed from `d' coy to bop rajatal, a coy situate at a distance of about 3 kms. close to the international border. he, however, did not comply with that order. on 12th of february, 2002, shri s.k.wadhwa, commandant, 19 bn. bsf .....

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2005(3)JKJ159

..... -3-2000 and his period of alleged absence from 2-8-1999 to 9-3-1999 has been treated as 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 not afforded an opportunity of being heard though he sent a number of representations for extension of leave, but the same have not been taken into consideration. it is further ..... . dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 10-3-2000 and treating the period of absence from 2-8-1999 to 9-3-1999 (221 days) as dies non is under challenge in the present petition. while working as constable in 105 bn. of the border security force, petitioner left for his home in 1999. it is alleged that he applied for leave which was orally sanctioned by the assistant commandant. leave was sought on receiving information from his home that his house, animals and other property has been washed away .....

Shri Kantilal Bhanudas Dukare a/P Raogaon, Tal.Karmala, Dist.Solapur. ...

Court : Mumbai

..... illegal gratification from one allauddin who was said to be a cattle smuggler from india. the petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted under the provisions of sections 40 and 46 of the border security force act 1968. the charges levelled against the petitioner are as under :charge bsf act, sec.401stan omission pre judicial to good order and discipline of the force in that he,on 07.07.2000 at about 1000 hrs while on op duty at gate no.4 of churiantpur bop shown negligency to discharge ..... 4 of churiantpur bop directly accepted rs.400/ from a cattle smuggler namely allauddin a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for forbearing to an official act, to wit, gave exit clearance of 08 cattle heads towards bangladesh.3 an inquiry was conducted under the provisions of the border security force act by the summary court. witnesses were examined on behalf of the department i.e. bsf and after following procedure i.e. by allowing the petitioner to cross examine the .....

Assadullah Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ178

..... of the date for submission of the show cause. he nevertheless filed show cause but nothing was communicated to him until service of the dismissal order. according to the appellant, he was denied due opportunity of hearing as provided in the border security force act, 1968 and the border security force rules, 1969 framed thereunder. the order being in violation of the statutory rules as well as the rules of natural justice is fit to be quashed.4. the plea of the appellant did not find favour and the writ petition was ..... february 15, 2001 in swp no. 565/92, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.2. the appellant, an ex-constable of the border security force (bsf), filed the writ petition for quashing order of his dismissal from service dated 26th february, 1991. the short facts of the case are that upon his transfer to 91 battalion of the force, the appellant was granted thirty days' earned leave from march 5, 1990 to april 3, 1990. earlier, on representation on the ground of .....

Ram Ashray Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... 5. shri udyan tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 20(a) of the border security force act, 1968. he refers to the provision of 3 section 20(a) and argues that the said provision only pertains to commission of an offence by use of criminal force or assault. the said provision does not pertain to threatening to kill without provocation which comes under section 20(a) and as the charges are only framed ..... writ petition and all the ground with regard to breach of statutory rules pointed out and annexure p/4 introduced as an appeal. however, annexure p/4 is only a memorandum submitted by petitioner s wife to the director general of border security force, new delhi, wherein she makes certain allegations of harassment of the petitioner, in this also he does not challenge the summary trial or the action initiated in the matter. it is, therefore, a case where the grounds not canvassed has .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.S. Kothiyal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1995(2)WLC288; 1995(1)WLN351

..... no. 1 in the appeal) joined as commissioned officer in the indian army as iind lieutenant on 30.6.1963. the petitioner was promoted as captain in the year 1965 and acting major in the year 1966. the petitioner was released from the army service on 16.9.1967 and was absorbed in the border security force where he was already working on deputation for some time as assistant commandant.3. respondents no. 3 to 38 likewise the petitioner were recruited as emergency commissioned officers ..... promotion rules an assistant commandant with six years of service was eligible for promotion as deputy commandant. this too is an admitted fact as recorded in the dpc proceedings that only such officers were appointed and absorbed as assistant commandant in the border security force, who had a high average record in the army and who did well during the interview. there were no interviews held for the post of deputy commandants. it, thus, leads to a conclusion that the record of the petitioner even in the .....

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Abdul Rehman and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR1981J& K60

..... powers delegated to respondent no. 3 by the union of india. the contention of mr. hussain is that since respondent no. 3 is a 'statutory employee' and is governed and controlled by the border security force act. the union of india cannot be fastened with the liability for his tortious acts because the union of india has 'no control' over its statutory employees. the argument is misconceived. the border security force act, no doubt regulates the working of the force and the allied matters, but merely because of that, the personnel of the bsf do not lose their status of being employees of the union of india. the b. s. f .....

Gorakh Nath Vs. State of J and K

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2006(1)JKJ192

..... after conducting court of enquiry and issuance of show cause notice.7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of this case.8. section 11(2) of the border security force act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'b.s.f. act') provides for dismissal, removal or reduction from service by an officer not below the rank of deputy inspector general or any prescribed officer under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or ranks ..... show cause notice.4. in order to appreciate the respective contentions the parties, the facts in brief may be noticed.5. petitioner was enrolled as constable in the border security force on 1.7.1971 and in february 1988, he was selected for posting on deputation in the ministry of external affairs in which capacity he served in the indian embassy at abu dhabi as security guard till 11th july, 1993. thereafter, petitioner was repatriated to the head quarters, i.g., b.s.f., jammu. he was .....