Back
D.A.DESAI, R.B.MISRA, RANGANATH MISRA
Brahma Chandra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the decision of the District Judge in appeal reversing the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant.
2. Appellant was working as a permanent Upper Division Clerk in the Defence Accounts Department at the relevant time. It appears that one Nathu Singh was wanted in a dacoity case. On 14-5-62 around about 4.00 the Investigating Officer received an information that Nathu Singh was present in the Premises in possession of the present appellant and this information led to a search of the premises occupied by him. The search and the consequent seizure led to the prosecution of the appellant for two distinct offences, one under Section 19 (F) of the Indian Arms Act and another under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Pending the investigation appellant was suspended from service with effect from May 14, 1962, the order having been passed on May 5, 1962. The order of suspension simultaneously provided that appellant would be entitled to draw subsistence allowance equal to leave salary which he would have drawn had he been on leave on half pay together wit
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the information given. There are references to subsequent reliance or citations, but no clear markers such as "overruled," "reversed," or "disapproved" are present in the snippets. Therefore, no cases are definitively identified as bad law at this stage.
Followed / Cited with Affirmation:
Several entries mention reliance on or citation of Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 380, and subsequent references to the case (e.g., Union of India (UOI). VS Mohd. Sharif Khan - 2006 0 Supreme(MP) 923, R. N. BHAGAT. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1981, Santosh Kumar Mohanty VS State of Orissa - 2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 35, Vinod Kumar VS G. N. C. T. of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5835, Anil Kumar Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 318). These suggest that the case has been considered authoritative or persuasive in later judgments.
For example, Santosh Kumar Mohanty VS State of Orissa - 2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 35 notes that Brahma Chandra Gupta was "followed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative..." indicating a positive judicial treatment.
Similarly, R. N. BHAGAT. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1981 discusses reliance on the case in reinstatement decisions, implying continued relevance and acceptance.
Distinguished / Differentiated:
In Takanomba VS State of Nagaland - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 953, the discussion indicates that the facts in the present case are "more or less similar" to Brahma Chandra Gupta, but the subsequent statement notes that "the facts in the present case and the facts in Brahma Chandra Gupta (supra) are entirely different," implying that the case was distinguished on facts.
explicitly states that "the decision in Brahma Chandra Gupta (supra) is clearly distinguishable," which suggests that the court did not treat the case as binding but rather distinguished it based on factual differences.
Uncertain / Ambiguous Treatment:
Several references, such as VINOD KUMAR MALIK VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 251, Chandrajeet Kumar @ Chandrajeet Paswan VS State of Jharkhand - 2014 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1171, and Vinod Kumar VS G. N. C. T. of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5835, mention reliance or citation but do not clarify whether the case was followed, overruled, or merely cited as persuasive authority.
The repeated references to the case in various contexts without explicit treatment language leave some ambiguity regarding its current legal standing.
Other notes:
The case appears to be frequently cited, especially in the context of employee reinstatement, departmental proceedings, and legal principles under Article 311, but without explicit treatment indicators, it is difficult to classify further.
Cases like VINOD KUMAR MALIK VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 251, Chandrajeet Kumar @ Chandrajeet Paswan VS State of Jharkhand - 2014 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1171, Vinod Kumar VS G. N. C. T. of Delhi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5835, and others where the case is mentioned as relied upon or cited without explicit commentary on its binding or persuasive status are marked as uncertain.
The treatment of Brahma Chandra Gupta in these instances is not explicitly stated as followed, distinguished, or overruled, making their treatment ambiguous based solely on the provided snippets.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
