LT. COL. K.D. GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 20-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f,. 
-( 
A 
LT. COL. K.D. GUPTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 20, 1988 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
. ..I 
Army Act, 1950: Section 20, 191 and 192 and Special Army 
Instruction No. 1 dated January 9, 1974--Army Officer-Subjected to < 
frequent medical examination-Downgrading and upgrading between 
shape-I and shape-III-Treated to have been reduced in rank-Whether 
c 
justified? 
~ 
The appellant was granted a permanent Commission in the Indian 
Army in 1958 and appointed as a Second Lieutenant. He rose to the 
level of Lt. Colonel on 27th February, 1975. In March, 1976 he was 
directed to report to the Military Hospital for his psychiatric examina-
D 
tion, where his medical classification was reduced from shape-I to 
shape-Ill, and he was posted as GLO and treated as Major. There was 
however no specific order reducing him in rank. 
In December, 1976, appellant's Classification was upgraded to 
-{ 
shape II and in September, 1977 to shape-I. But it was decided that he 
E 
should be subjected to special review before restoration of his rank. In a 
special report the Brigade Commander recorded appreciation of the 
appellant's work, and recommended his promotion as Lt. Colonel. But 
the Army Headquarters directed the appellant to the Military Hospital 
-
for further examination on the ground that an earlier incident of 1963 
had been overlooked when the appellant was graded as shape-I. On this 
·~ 
examination, the appellant was permanently downgraded as shape-II. 
r 
-
F 
In 1980, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court, challeng-
ing the action of Army Headquarters and his downgrading. This Court 
directed that he should be restored to the rank of Acting Lieutenant 
Colonel from the date he was reverted and that his claims to advance-
G 
ment, pay, arrears of pay, etc. should he considered and disposed of 
within six months (See 1984 (I) sec 153). 
After lodging his claims, the appellant waited for a reasonable 
).._ 
time and then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The respondent 
r, 
contended that there was nothing wrong in the recategorisation and the 
directions of the Supreme Court had been fully complied with. The 
H High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
646 
) . ., 
K.D. GUPTA v. U.0.1. 
647 
In this appeal by special leave, the appellant contended that a 
prejudicial approach developed against him in the Headquarters 
establishment without any justification and he had been unduly sub-
jected to psychiatric exaniination from time to time, and on the basis of 
the records built up against him adverse opinion had been forthcoming 
'Which resulted in recategorisation from shape-I to shape-II. To remove 
the apprehension of bias, this Court directed that the appellant may be 
examined by a Board consisting of three Experts with an outsider as 
Chairman. 
Aller considering the report of the Experts Committee this Court 
allowed the appeal in part and, 
HELD: 1. The appellant's medical category shall be taken as 
being continued to be shape-I from 1977 and on that basis bis promo-
tional entitlements shall be f"malised by the respondents within three 
months hence. It is open to the respondents to release the appellant 
from service after this has been done. l6SSF) 
2. The report of the Expert Committee makes it clear that there 
was no justification for the appellant to be subjected to psychiatric test 
in 1978 following which he was recategorised as shape-II. [654G I 
3. 'This sobject of categorisation on the basis of psychiatric test is 
technical and should. ordinarlly be left to experts available in the 
Defence Department and the guidelines indicated by the Department 
should he followed. This Court has no intention to disturb the disci-
pline of the Defence Department, but on the basis of material 
available on the record and on the basis of the report of the Committee 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of Experts, the appellant is entitled to limited relief. Though there was 
no order reducing him from the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel 
F 
to Major-, he was treated as having been so reduced. Then followed 
the frequent psychiatric examinations without any real justification. 
Jlis ·recate_gorisation, in these circumstances, was without any justi-
fICation. [654H; 655A-B) 
[Reiterating that it would like the discipline of ·the Defence 
G 
Department to he maintained by itself in the interest of the nation, this 
Court observed ttiat this case may .not he taken as a precedent.) [6

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.