Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Dec-19-1980
Reported in : AIR1981J& K60
..... ' 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. act itself starts with the preamble that the ..... is that the union of india is not liable for tortious act of its 'statutory employees' because such statutory employees are not 'employees of the state in the traditional and ordinary sense of the term'. it is urged that since the border security force, is a creation of a statute and its employees are governed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Nov-03-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ558
..... was, thereafter, served upon him by the i. g. p., b. s.f., to stand his trial for an offence under section 30(e) of the border security force act of 1968, hereinafter the act, before a general security force court. this charge-sheet was served upon him on 3-2-1980. he has challenged the service of this charge-sheet on him and commencement of his ..... orderi.k. kotwal, j.1. the petitioner, an assistant commandant, in border security force, was suspected of having committed' embezzlement to the tune of rs. 57,600/-. a court of enquiry was constituted to conduct enquiry into the matter. on the conclusion of the ..... . 55 and 53, both of which operate in different spheres. the petitioner not being liable to be punished under section 53 of the act, his trial by a security force court was not barred in terms of section 75 of the act.6. that apart, it is difficult to hold that a minor punishment was indeed inflicted on the petitioner under section 53. punishment .....
Tag this Judgment!