Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: enrolled member of the force Sorted by: recent Court: chennai Page 1 of about 304 results (0.067 seconds)

The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2009)2MLJ334

..... may make under this act, any supervisory officer may (i) dismiss or remove or reduce in rank any enrolled member of the force whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same; or (ii) award anyone or more of the following punishments to any enrolled member of the force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner or who act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, (a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days' pay or reduction in pay scale; ..... under section 9 of the act, it is provided that any enrolled member of the force aggrieved by an order made under section 8 may, within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal against the order to such authority as may be prescribed, and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the decision of the said authority thereon shall ..... it is evident from the provision contained in section 37(b) of the central industrial security force act, which prescribes the procedures to be followed in certain cases of misconduct, which interalia contains 'notwithstanding anything contained in rule 34, rule 35 or rule 36, where a penalty is imposed on a member of the force, where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to allow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as .....

K. Kabali Vs. the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(1)CTC450; [1999(82)FLR800]; (1999)IIMLJ561

..... learned counsel appearing for the respondents by drawing my attention to rule 153.8 of railway protection force rules, 1987 would contend that enrolled member of the force shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner, but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other members of the force. ..... karunakaran nair 1986 (1) l.l.j 124in the first case their lordships of the supreme court have held that,'if the employer is represented by a legally trained officer in the enquiry, request of the employee to have the assistance of a lawyer has to be granted'in the later case, the division bench of the kerala high court in an identical circumstance after holding that the presenting officer being an officer from c.b.i. ..... the petitioner has approached this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to appear for him in the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet issued by the first respondent dated 9.7.96 and direct the respondents to conduct a common enquiry in respect of the deliquents involved in the same case which is the subject matter of the said charge sheet.3. ..... it is also brought to my notice that rule 153.8 of railway protection force rules has been challenged before this court and some of the writ petitions are pending even now.8. .....

K. Kabali Vs. the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ66

..... learned counsel appearing for the respondents by drawing my attention to rule 153.8 of railway protection force rules, 1987 would contend that enrolled member of the force shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner, but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other members of the force. ..... 124.in the first case their lordships of the supreme court have held that,if the employer is represented by a legally trained officers in the enquiry, request of the employee to have the assistance of a lawyer has to be granted.in the later case, the division bench of the kerala high court in an identical circumstances after holding that the presenting officer being an officer from c.b.i, well-versed with the legal proceedings permitted the employee to have the assistance of a lawyer in the enquiry, the following conclusion of their lordships in the division bench is very relevant and the same ..... it is also brought to my notice that rule 153.8 of railway protection force rules has been challenged before this court, and some of the writ petitions are pending even now.8. .....

Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force and ors. Vs. S. S ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1996)IILLJ597Mad

..... may make under this act, any superior officer may -(i) dismiss, suspend or reduce in rank any (enrolled member) of the force whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or(ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force, who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own renders himself unfit the discharge thereof, namely;(a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days' pay or reduction in pay ..... (2) any enrolled member of the force aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal against the order to such authority as may be prescribed;provided that the prescribed authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. ..... the following are our reasons for our conclusion.it is to be noticed here that section 10 of the railway protection force act, 1957 stipulates that officers and members of the force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the indian railways act, 1890 other than chapter vi-a thereof, and shall be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that act. .....

P. Somasundaram Vs. M. Govindaswamy

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1982Mad117

..... 4 -aa of the act, observed that the words 'landlord who is enrolled as a member of the armed forces' (occurring therein) do merely qualify the landlord, but that does not mean to state that at the time when he is enrolled as a member of the armed forces, he should be a 'landlord'. ..... the meaning that has to be given for the clause 'if the persons serving in the armed forces are owners of land' is that the persons before they were enrolled as members of the armed forces, should be owners of the land ..... 4 -aa is that a person who is enrolled as a member of the armed forces must be the owner of the land at the time of enrolment to get the benefit of sub-see. (3). ..... (2), a cultivating tenant who is enrolled as a member of the armed forces, on discharge or retirement from service or on being sent to reserve, shall on application for resumption made within the prescribed period, to the revenue divisional officer, be entitled to resume possession of the lands sublet by him under sub-see. (1) ..... 4 -aa gives special privilege to the landlord who got himself enrolled as a member of the armed forces, to resume lands for personal cultivation after his discharge or retirement from service or his being sent to reserve from the armed forces. ..... 4 -aa definitely states that a landlord who is enrolled as a member of the armed forces shall, on discharge or retirement, from service or on being sent to reserve, be entitled to resume possession from any cultivating tenant for the purpose of personal cultivation. .....

Chellasamy Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... after retirement, the applicant enrolled himself as a member of the tamil nadu ex- services league bearing registration no.116/2010, an association duly registered under the registration of societies act, 1978, for the welfare of the retired persons from armed forces. 3. ..... appeal d.no.13139 of 2011 between union of india and ors and sohan lal bawa and ors against the order passed by armed forces tribunal, chandigarh in o.a.no.337 of 2010 dated 8.7.2010 that, it needs, however, to be clarified that the decision of the armed forces tribunal shall relate only to the case of havildars who, before their retirement, were granted honorary promotion to the rank of naib subedar and shall not be used as a precedent in case of other ranks.? since honorary ranks of ..... . virender singh, their lordships made following observation: it needs, however, to be clarified that the decision of the armed forces tribunal shall relate only to the cases of havildars who, before their retirement, were granted honorary promotion to the rank of naib subedar and shall not be used as a precedent in case of other ranks ..... the objections raised on behalf of the respondents in the reply- statement would be as follows: the applicant was enrolled in the indian army meg on 20.08.1968 and was discharged from service on 31.8.1992 afternoon after fulfilling the conditions of enrolment. .....

The Additional Deputy Inspector Vs. T.Murugesan

Court : Chennai

..... the circular issued by the director general of crpf dated 16.12.1999 is only a beneficial circular relaxing rule 17- a which enjoins on the discharged member of the force that in the event of seeking discharge from service under rule 17, he shall be required to refund to the government a sum equal to three months pay and allowances received by him prior to the resignation or discharge, as the case may be or the cost of training imparted to him in the force whichever is higher ..... a reading of the said provision makes it clear that in order to pass an order of discharge, there is a mandatory requirement for the member of the force seeking resignation, to refund to the government a sum equal to three months pay and allowances received by him prior to the resignation or discharge, as the case may be or the cost of training imparted to him in the force whichever is higher ..... in that context, the provision under rule 17 provids that where a member of force seeks discharge from the force within the period of three months from the date of enrolment the sum equal to three months pay and allowance shall be calculated with reference to three months pay and allowances which would have been received but for discharge.10 ..... rule 17- a is to be followed herein, it will only result in recovery of a sum equal to 3 months pay and allowances received by the writ petitioner prior to the date of resignation or discharge as the case may be or the cost of training imported in the force which ever is higher. .....

Khaja Mohammed Vs. the Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... the short facts of the case of the petitioner as narrated in the affidavit to the petition run as follows:- the petitioner was enrolled in the indian air force on 13.03.1962 as a combatant member in the trade of electrician after undergoing necessary training in various ..... though the petitioner has been discharged under rule 15(2)(g) of the air force rules 1969, there is no material placed before this tribunal to show that on what ground the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioners service is no longer required for the air force. ..... the petitioner, an unfortunate ex-sergeant in the indian air force, who after rendering 14 years and 244 days of regular service, had approached the honourable high court of andhra pradesh by way of filing the writ petition for grant of his service pension, which was denied on the ground that the minimum service required for pension is 15 years for his rank and that there is a shortage of 121 days in granting the ..... the personal file of the petitioner has been destroyed as life expired documents and hence, correct reason for the discharge of the petitioner under air force rules 1969, rule 15(2)(g) service no loner required unsuitable for retention in air force is not ..... we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mrs.tonifia miranda and the learned central government standing counsel mr.r.priyakumar, cgsc and mwo rk shukla, legal cell, 23 ed air force appearing for the respondents and considered their respective submissions. .....

G.Balasundaram. Vs. Union of India, and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... years,-(i) a member of judicial service; or(ii) held an office under the central government or a state government requiring special knowledge of law after enrolment as an advocate; or (iii) held an office in the department of judge advocate general or in the legal department of the armed forces. ..... no person shall be eligible for appointment as a notary unless on the date of the application for such appointment,- (a) a person had been practising at least for ten years, or (aa) a person belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other backward classes had been practising at least for seven years, or (ab) a woman who had been practising at least for sever years, as a legal practitioner, or (b) he had been a member of the indian legal service under the central government, or (c) he had been at least for ten ..... the case of the petitioner is that he is a practising advocate in pondicherry, who got enrolled as an advocate on 20.01.1990 and he is practising in civil, criminal, revenue, consumer and labour matters in pondicherry. .....

Yalla Chandramohan, (Service No.15159749-h) Versus Union of India and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... the short facts relevant for deciding this petition in the affidavit sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- the petitioner was enrolled as a combatant member of indian army on 10.10.2002 and was given a trade of gunner in general duty and was posted under the second respondent after the completion of his training. ..... but, when the tribunal posed a question to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner whether the petitioner, even after the release from the civil prison, had sent any application or made any protest before any of his superior authority or before any other authority as to the effect that he was harassed, threatened and intimidated and by using force, he was asked to plead guilty for the charges before the summary court martial. ..... the petitioner, who has faced the charges under section 52(a) of the army act and was convicted and sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment in civil prison and also dismissal from service, has challenged the impugned order of the court martial before the honourable high court of andhra pradesh by way of filing w.p.no.21374 of 2008, which has subsequently been transferred to this tribunal after the constitution of the armed forces tribunal, regional bench at chennai, under the armed forces tribunal act, 2007. 2. .....