Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 50 combination of punishments Page 8 of about 2,545 results (1.080 seconds)

Des Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... , to the petitioner, before concluding the trial.4. the petitionerbtherefore, demonstrates violation of the provisions of border security force act and rules framed there under by the respondents, in holding his trial.5. responding to the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that, while working as head constable with the border security force, the petitioner had absented himself from the border security force campus without permission during the night hours of october 30, 1997, and on enquiry, it ..... counsel submitted that the respondents had convicted and sentenced the petitioner, without holding a court of enquiry which according to the learned counsel was a pre-requisite for holding the petitionerbwas in violation of the provisions of the border security force act and rules framed there under which was liable to be set aside additionally because the respondents had failed to provide opportunity of hearing and right of cross- examination of the witnesses whose statement had .....

Union of India and Another Vs. Major Singh and Chander Pal Singh

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001IIIAD(Delhi)376; 2001(58)DRJ282

..... impose the punishment in the nature of 'removal from service' which is not enumerated and seriallized as one of the punishments under section 48 of the border security force act (in short 'bsf act'). 3. the respondents in these appeals were tried by the summary security force court on a charge under section 19(a) of bsf act for remaining absent without leave. during the course of their trials, the respondents pleaded guilty and the court awarded them the sentence of ..... dismissal from service. 4. the respondents herein preferred statutory petitions before the director general, border security force under sections 117(2) and 128 of the bsf act. while exercising the appellate powers the director general, border security force converted the sentence of 'dismissal' to that of 'removal from service'. the respondents aggrieved by the order of the director general, border security force preferred a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india. after hearing the learned counsel .....

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

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 91(2001)DLT291

..... benefits.2. the relevant facts essential for deciding this appeal are set out as follows. mr. mohinder singh, (who died and is now represented by his wife and two minor children and will be referred to hereinafter as respondent) was 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 'b' coy of 92 battalion bsf which was under the command of shri shiv kumar garg, asstt. commandant and was detailed for election duty. some other companies .....

Union of India Vs. Sandeep Malik

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1995IVAD(Delhi)745; 60(1995)DLT885; 1995(35)DRJ464

..... the word 'may be issued' and it is clear that it is an enabling provision and is clearly not mandatory. just as there are provisions in the civil procedure code . or cr. p.c. for obtaining evidence on commission, there is procedure indicated in the border security force act also. supposing, on a communication from the court in india to witnesses in a foreign country, - say through officials or lawyers - the indian court is able to obtain the presence of the witnesses residing outside india, the evidence of such witnesses who come ..... circumstances. (5) the view taken by the learned single judge that the procedure of issuing a commission to summon a witnesses abroad as envisaged by section 91(4) of the border security force act (read with section 285 of cr.p.c.) is mandatory and is, in our view, not correct. section 91(4) of the border security force act reads as follows: 's.91(4): when the witness resides in a tribal area or in any place outside india, the commission may be issued in the .....

Ct.Narender Kumar and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... from service which finding and sentence was confirmed by inspector general vide order dated 16.9.1997. 25. aggrieved by the finding and sentence awarded by the general security force court which stood confirmed by the inspector general, the petitioners preferred petition(s) under section 117(2) of border security force act, 1969 to the directorate general border security force, ministry of home affairs, government of india, which petition(s) were rejected vide order dated 16/17.04.1998. 26. the petitioners have ..... the report the commandant framed following charge against the petitioners:- "bsf act committing a civil offence, that is sec 46 to say, rape punishable u/s 376 ipc in that they, at chack (chhaturgul) on 23/12/96 at 1830 hrs onward committed rape on prosecutrix of village chack (chhaturgul), teh. kangan distt. srinagar (j&k)." 4. complying with the provisions of rule 45 of the border security force rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the bsf rules), the commandant .....

Ex-constable Ramvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(16)SCALE253; (2009)3SCC97:2009AIRSCW163:2009(1)LHSC93

..... on all seven days while undergoing ri, which is total defiance of authority.he was put to trial before a summary security force court on the aforementioned two charges in terms of the provisions of the border security force act, 1968 (for short, 'the act') and the rules framed thereunder.4. he pleaded guilty to both the charges. he was dismissed from service. a statutory petition filed by him under section 117 of the act was rejected by the director general of border security force by an order dated 28.6.2001. legality and/ or validity of the said order came to be questioned by the appellant by filing a writ petition .....

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE396

..... appellate authority under section 117 of the act.8. under the scheme of the border security force act, there are three kinds of security force courts. section 64 of the act provides for those three kinds, they being (a) general security force courts; (b) petty security force courts; and (c) summary security force courts. we are concerned here only with summary security force courts (ssfc). section 70 provides that a ssfc may be held by the commandant of any unit of the force and he alone shall constitute the court ..... bad and illegal, as there were no reasons given by any of these authorities.4. on that count, the high court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under section 117(2) of the border security force act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the same. the lead judgment was passed on 16.1.2006 in writ petition (civil) no. 9427 of 2005 filed by one constable .....

ex.head Constable Moti Singh vs.uoi & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... ms. justice indira banerjee hon'ble mr. justice anil kumar chawla indira banerjee, j judgment1 the short question involved in this writ petition is whether the summary security force court constituted under section 64 of the border security force act 1968, was justified in imposing on the petitioner the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in civil prison and dismissal from service for alleged possession of money disproportionate to his known sources of =====================================================================. wp ..... wp(c) no.3847/2006 page 3 of 10 7. on or about 12.05.2005, the petitioner made a statutory petition to the respondent no.2 under section 117 of the border security force act. the statutory petition was rejected by an order dated 26th october 2005.8. in this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the sentence of the summary court as revised by the dig station headquarters as also the order dated .....

Parama Nanda Deka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... d sur failed to produce any record, save and except filing an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondents.9. admittedly the order of dismissal has been issued in exercised of the power under section 11 of the border security force act. section 11 of that act is quoted below : '11. dismissal, removal or reduction by the director general and by other officers- (1) the director-general of any inspector general may dismiss or remove from the service or reduce to a lower grade or ..... bench judgment of calcutta high court and in para 10 the division bench has laid down the law as follows :'on a, very careful reading of the act and the rules we are unable to accept this contention or the stand taken by the authorities of the border security force who dealt with the present case, we have quoted section 11 of the act hereinbefore. that section, in our opinion, only empowers certain authorities to pass orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. this is an authorising section and not a .....

Const. C. Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Minist ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(3)ALD719; 2008(3)ALT220

..... him, including the show-cause notice dated 20.2.2003. he submits that the procedure prescribed under section 11 and other provisions of the border security force act (for short 'the act') and the rules made thereunder, was not followed. according to the learned counsel, there was a serious default, on the part of the respondents, in not attempting to secure the presence of the petitioner, by invoking the procedure of the relevant provisions, through the civilian authorities.4. learned additional standing counsel for the central government, on the other ..... orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. the petitioner joined the border security force as a constable, in or about the year 1988. after completion of the training, he was deployed on the indo-pak border at komalpur in the year 1990. he served at various places, and by the year 2002, he was posted at kutch/bhuj on the indo-pak border.in september 2002, the petitioner came to his native place, sree kalahasti, on long leave. he did not report to .....