https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314371 Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act confers an independent administrative power to dismiss or remove a person under command, distinct from punishment through a Security Force Court. The Court held that a Security Force Court enquiry was not a mandatory precondition where the Commandant acted as the prescribed officer under the Rules. It further found that the notice satisfied Rule 20 because the respondent was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to defend himself, so no further enquiry was required on the facts. Treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave did not invalidate the dismissal, because the operative basis was that continued retention in service had become undesirable. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2024 17:27:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314371 Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act confers an independent administrative power to dismiss or remove a person under command, distinct from punishment through a Security Force Court. The Court held that a Security Force Court enquiry was not a mandatory precondition where the Commandant acted as the prescribed officer under the Rules. It further found that the notice satisfied Rule 20 because the respondent was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to defend himself, so no further enquiry was required on the facts. Treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave did not invalidate the dismissal, because the operative basis was that continued retention in service had become undesirable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314371