R.L. GUPTA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 16-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

R.L. GUPTA & ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MARCH 16, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH, JJ.J 
B 
Service matter-Whether supersession of a judicial officer by 
junior officers placed on probation when that officer is on deputation to 
another office and is not relieved from there in public interest to revert to 
A the judicial service to be placed on probation, is valid-Determination 
\ of the question on principles of justice, equity and relevant judicial C 
~· 
precedents. 
.l 
This writ petition was originally filed in this ·Court by two mem-
bers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, namely, Shrl R.L. Gupta and 
Shri S.B. Aggarwal, but as the Court was of the view that the case of 
Shri S.B. Aggarwal should be considered independently, he was asked 
D 
to file a separate petition, and this petition was confined to Shri R.L. 
Gupta only. 
The petitioner, Shri R.L. Gupta, who had become a member of 
the Delhi Judicial Service on its initial constitution on August 2, 1971 
and was confirmed in the said service as a sub-judge on August 6, 1971, 
E 
was working as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi; when 
on 14.5.1981, on the establishment of the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice 
Board, he was sent on deputation as the first Member-Secretary of that 
Board. Thereafter, when the Government of India on April 26, 1985 
appointed a Commission of Inquiry presided over by Shri Justice Ran-
ganath Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, to enquire into the alle-
F 
gations in regard to the incidents of organised violence following the 
assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the late Prime Minister of India, 
the Central Government by letter dt. May 27, 1985, requested the Delhi 
.High Court to spare the services of the petitioner for being appointed as 
Secretary to the Commission above-mentioned and upon the petition-
er's expressing his willingness to work as Secretary to the said Commis-
G 
sion, he was permitted by the High Court to go on deputation to the 
Commission with effect from 1st June, 1985 at his own risk. Within 
three months from the date on which the petitioner had joined the 
Commission as its Secretary, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court 
wrote to Shri Justice Ranganath Misra, that it had·been decided by the 
High Court to place the petitioner on probation on the Delhi Higher 
H 
255 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-~ 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] 3 S.C.R. 
Judicial Service as his turn had come for the same and, therefore, he 
might be relieved from the Commission to enable him to report to the 
High Co_urt as soon as possible-not later than ten days from the receipt 
of that communication. Shri Justice Ranganath Misra thereupon wrote 
to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court that the petitioner had got 
himself acquaintoo with the working of the Commission and it was 
diffi_cult at that juncture to relieve him in public interest. The letter of 
Shri Ranganath Misra was considered by the High Court at its meeting 
held on 22. l t. 1985, when a resolution was passed to the effect that Shri 
R.L. Gupta, who had been on deputation with the Delhi Legal Aid & 
Advice Board, was asked to revert back to his parent cadre for being 
considered to be placed on probation, but he, instead of reverting back, 
went on a second deputation as Secretary to R.N. Misra Commission of 
Inquiry at his own request and risk; he was asked vide High Court's 
endt. dated 26.8.85 to come back to parent cadre within ten days 
otherwise the next person would be placed on probation, and Mr. R.L. 
Gupta refused to come back and got it intimated through Justice R.N. 
Misra vide letter dt. 19.8.85 that he had come at his own risk. The 
Resolution further said that the case of Shri R.L. Gupta for being placed 
on probation was considered and as he had declined to be available to be 
placed on probation at his own risk, the same had been rejected and 
that the officers next to him were then considered and five officers--
Shri Jaspal Singh and four others--were selected for being placed on 
probation against regular vacancies. 
By the above-said resolution, Shri Jaspal Singh and four others 
were allowed to supersede the petitioner. Further, twelve more officers 
were placed on probation. Thus, in all seventeen judicial officers were 
allowed to supersede the petitioner. 
On completion of the work of the Commission of Inquiry on + 
October 3 l, 1986, the petitioner was posted as Additional District & 
Sessions Judge, a

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