2018

Which one of the following is not correct in relation to an order of suspension of an enrolled member of the Central Industrial Security Force?

[amp_mcq option1=”An enrolled member of the Force is deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority with effect from the date of detention if he/she is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours.” option2=”An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made continues to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.” option3=”An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made can be modified or revoked at any time by any authority to which the authority who had issued the order of suspension is subordinate.” option4=”An enrolled member cannot be kept under suspension for more than 180 days.” correct=”option4″]

Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, Rule 32 deals with suspension. While Rule 32(6) mandates periodic review of suspension orders (before 90 days and subsequently before 180 days from the date of extension), it does not prescribe an absolute maximum period like 180 days for the entire duration of suspension. Suspension can continue beyond 180 days, subject to timely reviews by the competent authority or a review committee. Therefore, the statement that an enrolled member cannot be kept under suspension for more than 180 days is incorrect.

CISF Rules require periodic review of suspension orders but do not impose an absolute upper limit of 180 days on the total duration of suspension.

Options A, B, and C are consistent with the provisions of Rule 32 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Deemed suspension after 48 hours in custody is covered by Rule 32(2)(a). The continuation and modification/revocation of suspension orders by the competent authority or a superior authority are covered by Rule 32(5).

If, during the probation period of a member of the Central Industrial Security Force, the appointing authority is of the opinion that the member is not fit for permanent appointment, which one of the following actions cannot be taken by the appointing authority?

[amp_mcq option1=”The appointing authority may terminate his/her services after giving one month’s notice.” option2=”The appointing authority may terminate his/her services with immediate effect but after giving three months’ pay in lieu of the aforesaid notice.” option3=”The appointing authority may revert him/her to the rank from which he/she was promoted.” option4=”The appointing authority may repatriate him/her to his/her parent department, as the case may be.” correct=”option2″]

CISF Rules, 2001, Rule 24 deals with the termination of services of probationers. Rule 24(a) allows termination by giving one month’s notice. Rule 24(b) allows termination by paying a sum equivalent to the amount of pay plus allowances for *one month* in lieu of notice. Option B describes terminating services with immediate effect after giving *three months’* pay in lieu of notice. This is not in accordance with Rule 24.

CISF Rules specify termination of probation with one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof, not three months’ pay.

Option A (one month’s notice) and Option C (reversion to promoted rank) are valid actions under Rule 24 for different scenarios of probationers. Option D (repatriation) is also a standard action for deputationists failing probation, though not explicitly detailed in Rule 24 itself. Option B is incorrect due to the specified duration of pay in lieu.

Which one of the following is not correct in relation to the penalty for neglect of duty prescribed in the Central Industrial Security Force Act?

[amp_mcq option1=”A member of the Force convicted of neglect of duty cannot be punished with imprisonment.” option2=”The offence of neglect of duty is cognizable and non-bailable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” option3=”The Central Government may invest the Commandant with the powers of a Magistrate for trying the offence of neglect of duty.” option4=”There is no absolute bar on an offence punishable under the Act to be tried by an ordinary criminal court.” correct=”option1″]

Section 12 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, prescribes the penalties for neglect of duty and other specified offences. It states that a member convicted of such an offence “shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” Statement A says a member *cannot* be punished with imprisonment, which directly contradicts Section 12.

The CISF Act explicitly allows for imprisonment as a punishment for neglect of duty, making the statement that imprisonment cannot be awarded incorrect.

Option B is partially correct; Section 13(1) makes the offence cognizable. However, the Act does not state it is non-bailable; based on CrPC classification for offences with max 6 months imprisonment, it is generally bailable. So, the “non-bailable” part of B is incorrect, making B also an incorrect statement. However, A is a more direct contradiction of the punishment defined in the Act. Option C is correct as Section 15 allows the Central Government to invest Commandants with magisterial powers. Option D is correct as Section 16 confirms concurrent jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts. Given the options and typical question design, A is the intended incorrect statement focusing on the defined penalty.

Which of the following fall/s within the scope of technical consultancy services rendered by the Central Industrial Security Force?

[amp_mcq option1=”Studying the industrial security and fire protection related problems and suggesting appropriate solutions” option2=”Preparing disaster management and contingency plan and conducting rehearsals for such plans” option3=”Planning and designing of communication networks and preparation of related operations instructions” option4=”All of the above” correct=”option4″]

The Central Industrial Security Force provides comprehensive technical consultancy services related to security, fire protection, and safety for industrial establishments and other vital installations. This includes evaluating existing security/fire arrangements, recommending solutions (Option A), developing disaster management and contingency plans and conducting drills (Option B), and designing/planning communication systems relevant to security operations (Option C). Therefore, all the listed options fall within the scope of CISF’s technical consultancy services.

CISF offers technical consultancy covering various aspects of industrial security, including physical security, fire safety, disaster management, and communication systems.

CISF has a dedicated consultancy wing comprising experienced officers and technical experts who conduct security and fire vulnerability assessments and provide tailored recommendations to clients.

The Director General of the Central Industrial Security Force is appointed by the

[amp_mcq option1=”Bureau of Public Enterprises” option2=”National Security Council Secretariat” option3=”Central Government” option4=”Cabinet Committee on Security” correct=”option3″]

The Director General (DG) of the Central Industrial Security Force, being the head of a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), is appointed by the Central Government. These appointments are typically made at the highest level of the government, often after approval by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

Appointments to the post of Director General of CAPFs are made by the Union Central Government.

The Central Government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, has administrative control over the CISF and makes key appointments, including that of the Director General. Options A, B, and D represent different government bodies, but the ultimate appointing authority for such a high-level post is the Central Government.