https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175161 A member of a disciplined uniformed force remains subject to service discipline even while in internal custody, and refusal to take meals or perform drill may constitute misconduct under Section 22 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The Court also applied the proportionality standard in judicial review of disciplinary punishment and held that dismissal was not so outrageously disproportionate as to warrant interference, particularly where the appellant had pleaded guilty and shown no mitigating or medical justification. The challenge that he was denied counsel or a friend of choice was rejected because it had not been properly raised earlier and could not be entertained for the first time in appeal. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175161 A member of a disciplined uniformed force remains subject to service discipline even while in internal custody, and refusal to take meals or perform drill may constitute misconduct under Section 22 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The Court also applied the proportionality standard in judicial review of disciplinary punishment and held that dismissal was not so outrageously disproportionate as to warrant interference, particularly where the appellant had pleaded guilty and shown no mitigating or medical justification. The challenge that he was denied counsel or a friend of choice was rejected because it had not been properly raised earlier and could not be entertained for the first time in appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175161