Which one of the following is not included in the Human Resource Policy of CISF ?
2022
12. The question whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could interfe
The question whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could interfere with penalty awarded by the competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved, was examined by the Supreme Court of India in which one of the following cases ?
– The Supreme Court held in this case that the Tribunal has the power to judicially review the findings of the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed. However, the Tribunal should not sit as an appellate authority substituting its own view on the penalty. It should only interfere with the quantum of punishment if it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved or if there is some procedural irregularity leading to miscarriage of justice.
– Sagir Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh concerned the fundamental right to carry on trade or business and the state’s power to create monopolies.
– L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court declared the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court over decisions of Tribunals as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. While it dealt with the jurisdiction of Tribunals, the Parma Nanda case is more specifically about the scope of review of the proportionality of penalty by administrative tribunals.
– The principle laid down in Parma Nanda regarding the proportionality review by tribunals has been reiterated and followed in numerous subsequent judgments.
13. 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 ?
– 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.
– 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.
14. 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 ?
– 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.
15. 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:
– 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”.
– 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.
16. 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 ?
– 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.
– 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.
17. 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:
– 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 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.
18. ‘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 ?
– 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’.
– 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.
19. 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 ?
– 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 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.
20. 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 ?
– 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 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).