UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

11. Which one of the following is not covered under minor penalties impose

Which one of the following is not covered under minor penalties imposed on a Government servant ?

Censure

Withholding of promotion

Compulsory retirement

Recovery of pecuniary loss

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Compulsory retirement.

– Disciplinary penalties for Central Government servants are classified into minor and major penalties under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules).
– Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules lists the penalties.
– Minor Penalties include: Censure, withholding of promotion, recovery of pecuniary loss, withholding of increments (without cumulative effect), reduction to a lower stage in the time scale (for a short period, without cumulative effect).
– Major Penalties include: Withholding of increments (with cumulative effect), reduction to a lower stage/service/group/post, compulsory retirement, removal from service, dismissal from service.
– Compulsory retirement is listed as one of the major penalties under Rule 11.

– Censure (A) is the least severe minor penalty.
– Withholding of promotion (B) for a specified period is a minor penalty.
– Recovery of pecuniary loss (D) caused to the government is also a minor penalty.
– Compulsory retirement (C) results in the government servant’s services being terminated prematurely but they are still entitled to pensionary benefits as per rules, unlike removal or dismissal.

12. Which one of the following is not correct with respect to the conditio

Which one of the following is not correct with respect to the conditions of eligibility for appointment to the CISF ?

The person shall be a citizen of India

The person shall have training in civil defence

The person shall bear a good moral character

The person shall belong to such categories of persons as may, from time to time be declared by the Central Government as being eligible for appointment to the CISF

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is The person shall have training in civil defence.

– Standard eligibility conditions for appointment to a disciplined force like the CISF include citizenship, age limits, educational qualifications, physical and medical fitness, and good character.
– Option A (Citizen of India) is a fundamental requirement for appointment to Central Government services, especially security forces.
– Option C (Good moral character) is essential for members of any disciplined force.
– Option D (Belonging to such categories of persons as may… be declared by the Central Government) refers to the government’s authority to set recruitment criteria, including educational qualifications, age limits, reservation policies, etc., which is a valid aspect of eligibility.
– Option B (The person shall have training in civil defence) is not a standard *eligibility condition* for *appointment*. Training in civil defence or other relevant skills is usually imparted *during* the recruitment process or as part of the training curriculum *after* a candidate is selected for appointment. It is not a pre-requisite for applying or being considered eligible.

– Recruitment rules for CISF outline specific criteria regarding nationality, age, education, physical standards, and character/antecedents. Possession of prior civil defence training is not listed as one of these mandatory entry requirements.

13. For the purpose of inquiring into any offences or trying offences spec

For the purpose of inquiring into any offences or trying offences specified under Section 18(1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, every officer holding the rank of Commandant or equivalent, shall exercise the powers of a:

Magistrate of the First Class.

Magistrate of the Second Class.

Sessions Judge.

Additional Sessions Judge.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Magistrate of the First Class.

– Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 deals with offences committed by members of the force against discipline and duty.
– Section 18(3) empowers a Commandant or any officer of higher rank to hold a trial for these offences and award punishments specified in sub-section (2).
– While conducting such summary trials, the officer holding the trial (Commandant or higher) is granted specific powers akin to those of a civil court or magistrate for procedural aspects.
– As per Rule 38 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (which elaborate on the summary trial procedure under the Act), the officer holding the trial “shall have the powers of a Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of examining witnesses, administering oaths and affirmations and requiring the production of documents”.

– The trials under Section 18 are internal disciplinary trials, not criminal trials under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
– However, to conduct a proper trial process (recording evidence, examining witnesses), certain judicial powers are necessary. These powers, for the limited purpose of the trial, are specified as those of a First Class Magistrate.
– Offences triable by Sessions Courts (Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge) are serious criminal offences under the IPC, which are dealt with under Section 19 of the CISF Act, where members of the force are tried by ordinary criminal courts, not by the Commandant.

14. Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched, as per the

Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched, as per the Central Industrial Security Force Amendment Act, 1983 ?

Senior Security Guard : Naik

Chief Security Officer : Commandant

Head Security Guard : Constable

Security Officer : Assistant Commandant

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Head Security Guard : Constable.

– Based on the typical hierarchical structure of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and related forces, the rank progression generally involves Constable, followed by Naik or Senior Constable, then Head Constable (or equivalent), Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), Sub Inspector (SI), Inspector, Assistant Commandant (AC), etc.
– In the context of CISF ranks (including those potentially used or referred to around the time of the 1983 amendment), Head Security Guard was generally considered equivalent to Head Constable. Naik was a rank typically above Constable and possibly equivalent to Senior Constable or lower than Head Constable. Security Officer is usually a gazetted officer rank, equivalent to Assistant Commandant. Chief Security Officer is often a senior rank or position.
– Comparing the options:
– A) Senior Security Guard : Naik – Plausible equivalence as both are above Constable.
– B) Chief Security Officer : Commandant – While a Commandant might hold the position of Chief Security Officer, they are not typically direct rank equivalents in the general structure. However, less definitively incorrect than C.
– C) Head Security Guard : Constable – Incorrect. Head Security Guard is equivalent to Head Constable, which is a rank significantly higher than Constable.
– D) Security Officer : Assistant Commandant – Plausible and common equivalence for entry-level gazetted officer rank.
– Therefore, the pair Head Security Guard : Constable is not correctly matched.

– CISF ranks include (ascending order): Constable, Senior Constable, Naik, Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector, Inspector, Assistant Commandant, Deputy Commandant, Commandant, Senior Commandant, Deputy Inspector General, Inspector General, Additional Director General, Director General.
– Historically, ‘Naik’ and ‘Head Security Guard’ were ranks used, with Head Security Guard being equivalent to Head Constable. Equating Head Security Guard to the lowest rank, Constable, is incorrect.

15. Which of the following Acts is/are not applicable to Central Industria

Which of the following Acts is/are not applicable to Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) ?
1. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936
2. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. The Factories Act, 1948
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

1, 2 and 4 only

2, 3 and 4 only

1 and 4 only

2 only

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is 1, 2 and 4 only.

– The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) is an armed force of the Union, established under the CISF Act, 1968.
– Members of armed forces of the Union are typically excluded from the purview of general labour laws such as The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and The Factories Act, 1948. Their service conditions, discipline, and other related matters are governed by their specific Acts and Rules.
– Article 33 of the Constitution allows Parliament to modify or abrogate fundamental rights for members of armed forces, including those related to freedom of association and other rights that labour laws are based on.
– The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is a general criminal law that applies to all persons in India, including members of the CISF, unless specific exceptions are made for acts done in the discharge of their official duty (which are often covered by provisions within the CISF Act or CrPC, but the IPC itself is not rendered inapplicable to them).

– Item 1 (The Payment of Wages Act, 1936), Item 2 (The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), and Item 4 (The Factories Act, 1948) regulate conditions of service, payment of wages, and industrial relations/working conditions, primarily in industrial establishments and other civilian employment. Members of disciplined forces like CISF have distinct service rules.
– Item 3 (The Indian Penal Code, 1860) defines criminal offences and punishments. CISF personnel are subject to the general criminal law of the land like any other citizen. While the CISF Act contains provisions for disciplinary offences specific to the force, the IPC applies to them for general crimes.
– Therefore, Acts 1, 2, and 4 are generally not applicable to CISF personnel, while Act 3 is applicable. The question asks which are *not* applicable.

16. ‘A’, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or

‘A’, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat ‘B’, with thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and faces the risk to run down boat ‘C’, with two passengers on board. ‘A’ altered his course to save passengers in boat ‘B’ without any intention to run down the boat ‘C’ and in good faith. In the process of altering his course, he runs down boat ‘C’ with 2 passengers. In this case, ‘A’ can be held guilty of which one of the offences given below ?

Causing death by rash and negligent act

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Murder

Not guilty of any offence

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Not guilty of any offence.

– The scenario described is an example of the defense of necessity, covered under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
– Section 81 states that nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
– In this case, ‘A’, the captain, faced with the imminent harm of running down a boat with thirty passengers, chooses to run down a boat with two passengers to prevent the greater harm. The act is done in good faith and without criminal intent to cause harm to the passengers in boat ‘C’, but to prevent greater harm to passengers in boat ‘B’.

– For Section 81 to apply, two conditions must be met: (1) the act must be done without criminal intention and in good faith, and (2) it must be done for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm to person or property. The harm avoided must generally be greater than or equal to the harm caused, although the section only requires it to be done “for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm”. The illustration under Section 81 in the IPC is very similar to the scenario provided.
– Causing death by rash and negligent act (Section 304A IPC) requires rashness or negligence. Here, ‘A’ acted deliberately to avoid a greater catastrophe, not rashly or negligently in the ordinary sense.
– Culpable homicide (Section 299/304 IPC) requires intention or knowledge as defined in Section 299. While ‘A’ had knowledge that running down boat ‘C’ was likely to cause death, the act was done to prevent a greater harm and in good faith, bringing it under the exception provided by Section 81.
– Murder (Section 300/302 IPC) is a higher degree of culpable homicide requiring specific intentions or knowledge as defined in Section 300, and without attracting any exceptions. The good faith and necessity here exempt the act from being culpable homicide, let alone murder.

17. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given unde

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given under which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?

Section 302

Section 304

Section 299

Section 300

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Section 304.

– Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
– It provides different imprisonment terms based on whether the act was done with the intention of causing death/bodily injury likely to cause death, or merely with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

– Section 299 of the IPC defines “Culpable homicide”.
– Section 300 of the IPC defines “Murder”, listing the circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder. It also provides exceptions where culpable homicide is not murder.
– Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for murder.
– Therefore, Section 299 defines the act, Section 300 distinguishes murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and Sections 302 and 304 provide the punishments for murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, respectively.

18. Which of the following Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1

Which of the following Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes provision regarding Appeals and Revision to the High Court ?

Section 25

Section 27

Section 32

Section 34

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Section 27.

– Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for Appeals and Revision to the High Court.
– It states that subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any appeal or revision against the order of a Special Judge shall lie to the High Court.

– The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 creates a special category of courts presided over by Special Judges to try offences under the Act.
– The provisions for appeal and revision ensure that the proceedings and orders of these Special Courts are subject to scrutiny by the High Court, maintaining the judicial hierarchy and allowing for correction of errors.
– Section 25 relates to the Act not affecting other laws.
– Section 32 is related to the repeal and saving provisions (of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952).
– Section 34 deals with the statement of objects and reasons (which is not part of the Act itself but often accompanies it).

19. To prosecute a public servant, prior sanction from the Central or Stat

To prosecute a public servant, prior sanction from the Central or State Government is necessary. The provision for previous sanction necessary for prosecution of public servant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mentioned under which one of the following Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

Section 19

Section 18A

Section 20

Section 22

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Section 19.

– Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 specifically deals with the necessity of obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, before prosecuting a public servant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act.
– This provision is a safeguard for public servants against vexatious prosecution, ensuring that the decision to prosecute is taken by a competent authority after due consideration.

– Section 7 pertains to the offence of taking gratification other than legal remuneration by a public servant in respect of an official act.
– Section 11 pertains to the offence committed by a public servant who obtains any valuable thing, without consideration, from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by him.
– Section 13 pertains to the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant.
– Section 15 pertains to the offence of attempt to commit offences referred to in Section 13(1)(c) and (d).
– Section 18A deals with the power to appoint special counsel.
– Section 20 deals with the presumption where a public servant accepts illegal gratification.
– Section 22 deals with the procedure and powers of special judges.

20. Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnes

Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnesses is not correct ?

No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court.

It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.

The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than multiplicity or plurality of witness.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The statement that is not correct is “It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.”

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expressly states, “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” This statutory provision establishes the principle that evidence is weighed, not counted. The court can base its decision on the testimony of a single witness if it finds that witness to be credible and reliable. Statements A, B, and D all reflect this principle – that the law does not require a minimum number of witnesses and emphasizes the quality or value of the evidence over the quantity. Statement C directly contradicts this principle by claiming that reliance cannot be based on a solitary statement in *any* situation, which is incorrect under Indian law.

While courts often prefer corroboration, especially in certain types of cases, the evidence of a single credible witness is sufficient to establish a fact. There is no rule of law requiring multiple witnesses for proof; it is a matter for the court to decide based on its assessment of the reliability of the witness’s testimony.