2022

Which one of the following is not included in the Human Resource Policy of CISF ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Harmonious cadre management” option2=”Departmental disciplinary actions” option3=”Mentoring and team building for direct officers to ensure optimal performance” option4=”Continuous performance appraisal” correct=”option2″]

The question asks which one of the listed items is NOT included in the Human Resource Policy of CISF. While all options relate to personnel management, “Departmental disciplinary actions” are typically governed by specific service rules and regulations rather than being listed as a core *goal* or *component* within a standard HR Policy document that focuses on areas like cadre management, performance, training, and development. HR policies often outline the framework for handling such actions, but the detailed list of specific disciplinary actions themselves might reside elsewhere. Options A, C, and D represent common strategic and operational elements included in HR policies aimed at effective personnel management and development.

Human Resource Policies typically focus on strategic management, development, welfare, and positive aspects of personnel management. While disciplinary actions are an HR function, the detailed procedures and rules are often codified in separate service rules or procedural manuals rather than being a primary component listed within a general HR policy document in the same way as cadre management or performance systems.

Disciplined forces like CISF have detailed rules governing conduct and discipline, often derived from specific acts and rules applicable to central armed police forces. These rules outline the types of misconduct and the corresponding disciplinary procedures and penalties. An HR policy would likely reference these rules and outline HR’s role in the process, but the specific actions might not be exhaustively listed as part of the policy itself. Harmonious cadre management involves planning, recruitment, promotion, and posting. Mentoring and team building are developmental activities. Continuous performance appraisal is part of evaluation and career progression.

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 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Excel Wear vs. Union of India” option2=”Sagir Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” option3=”L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India” option4=”Union of India vs. Shri Parma Nanda” correct=”option4″]

The correct answer is Union of India vs. Shri Parma Nanda.

– The question of whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) can interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground of proportionality was extensively examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shri Parma Nanda (AIR 1989 SC 1185).
– 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.

– Excel Wear vs. Union of India dealt with the validity of provisions restricting the employer’s right to close down an undertaking.
– 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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”Censure” option2=”Withholding of promotion” option3=”Compulsory retirement” option4=”Recovery of pecuniary loss” correct=”option3″]

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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”The person shall be a citizen of India” option2=”The person shall have training in civil defence” option3=”The person shall bear a good moral character” option4=”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” correct=”option2″]

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.

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:

[amp_mcq option1=”Magistrate of the First Class.” option2=”Magistrate of the Second Class.” option3=”Sessions Judge.” option4=”Additional Sessions Judge.” correct=”option1″]

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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”Senior Security Guard : Naik” option2=”Chief Security Officer : Commandant” option3=”Head Security Guard : Constable” option4=”Security Officer : Assistant Commandant” correct=”option3″]

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.

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:

[amp_mcq option1=”1, 2 and 4 only” option2=”2, 3 and 4 only” option3=”1 and 4 only” option4=”2 only” correct=”option1″]

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.

‘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 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Causing death by rash and negligent act” option2=”Culpable homicide not amounting to murder” option3=”Murder” option4=”Not guilty of any offence” correct=”option4″]

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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 302″ option2=”Section 304″ option3=”Section 299″ option4=”Section 300″ correct=”option2″]

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.