witnesses, and thus
Rule 141(2) and 142(2) of the Army Rules were complied with. Upon
being asked in question 16 whether the accused ... criminal trial. The
respondent is governed by the Army Act and Army Rules, and not by the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter
liable to be passed under Rule
13 (3) read with Rule 13 (1) of Army Rules or on the basis of paragraphs ... Army Orders to guide his discretion
under Rule 15 of the Rules. Therefore, the Chief of Army Staff would
have the necessary powers in terms
case would not over ride the provisions of the Army Act 1950,
the Army Rules 1954 or the Pension Regulations for the Army ... Rule (1) of
Rule 18 is inapplicable. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18 relates to dismissal
of a person subject to the Army Act , other
respondent/writ
petitioner was not dismissed but discharged from service under
Army Rule 13 (3) III (v) on the ground services no longer required ... Defence (Army)
letter dated 28.12.1988 and No. 41776/48/AG/DV-I(P) dated
07.04.2004 providing for discharge of an army personnel under
Rule
petitioner is in conformity with rules
and laws? The answer is definitely not because, Rule 22 of the Army Rules,
1954 speaks as follows ... Army Rules, 1954 is complied with, in such a case, the provision made in
Sub-Rule 1 under Rule 22 may be dispensed with
Section 21 , 102(4) and 191 of the Army Act
making various provisions of the Army Rules including Rules 19 to
21 applicable ... attracting Rule
2 of the abovesaid 1965 Punjab Rules dated 21-7-
1965.
17. We have already extracted the above Rule and
it would
appeal before the Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New
Delhi, complaining complete violation of the provisions of the Army
Act . However, when no response ... Army Rules, 1954. It is
further alleged Rule 22 and Rule 23 of the Rules were also not
complied with. Before present round of litigation
respondent/writ petitioner was not dismissed but
discharged from service under Army Rule 13 (3) III (v) on
the ground "services no longer required ... Defence (Army) letter dated 28.12.1988 and
No. 41776/48/AG/DV-I(P) dated 07.04.2004 providing
for discharge of an army personnel under Rule
discharged under item III(v) of table
annexed to Army Rule 13(3) as his services were no longer required being
undesirable/inefficient, vide Army ... service as an undesirable
soldier as per ARI para 590 and Army Rule 13(3)(v).
CWP No.662 of 2012 [2]
*****
The petitioner challenged
respondents have violated the provisions of sub rule (4) of
Rule 63 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.
7. It is also the case ... Page 12 of 20
who was governed by the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. The
procedure mentioned in the manual of military
