Q: Write about the citation of M. Prakash V. Director General, 18.01.2019 ?

Ans: 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT                                               DATED: 18.01.2019                                                   

 CORAM:    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN                                             WP(MD)No.1175 of 2009                                                    and                                              MP(MD)No.1 of 2009                   

 M.Prakash  ... Petitioner                                                       

 Vs                     

1.The Director General,                        Border Security Force,                       (Disc & Lit.Branch),                        Second Floor, Block No.10,                        CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 3.                   

 2.The Deputy Inspector General,                     

  SHQ, BSF, Gokhul Nagar.         

  3.The Commandant,                      

 59, Battalion, Border Security Force,                        Fatikchera, Tripura.   ......Respondent

A dismissal order was issued on March 1, 2008 by the commandant and the appeal on the dismissal order was also rejected by the director general of BSF. Subsequently, Prakash moved to the Madurai bench of the Madras high court to set aside the dismissal order.

A Border Security Force (BSF) constable from Madurai who was dismissed from service in 2008 on charges of improperly allowing crossing over of fish headloads from Bangladesh to India, while serving in the border in Tripura has been directed to be reinstated into service by the Madurai bench of the Madras high court.

x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...
Read more