https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463574 Clarification of evidence in disciplinary proceedings was treated as incidental to the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, so the Commandant could direct preparation of additional record of evidence before the 2011 amendment to resolve the date discrepancy in the incident. The 2011 amendment was held clarificatory, not restricted to future cases, and the challenge on jurisdiction failed. Under Rule 149, a Summary Security Force Court was not required to record reasons for a finding of guilt because the rule neither expressly nor by necessary implication imposed such a duty; the absence of reasons did not vitiate the finding. The disciplinary proceedings were therefore upheld and the writ challenge failed. en-us Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463574 Clarification of evidence in disciplinary proceedings was treated as incidental to the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, so the Commandant could direct preparation of additional record of evidence before the 2011 amendment to resolve the date discrepancy in the incident. The 2011 amendment was held clarificatory, not restricted to future cases, and the challenge on jurisdiction failed. Under Rule 149, a Summary Security Force Court was not required to record reasons for a finding of guilt because the rule neither expressly nor by necessary implication imposed such a duty; the absence of reasons did not vitiate the finding. The disciplinary proceedings were therefore upheld and the writ challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463574