STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus CHANDRABHAN TALE

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 07-07-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

337 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
CHANDRABHAN TALE 
July 7, 1983 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Subsistence allowance-Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, second proviso 
to Rule 151 (i) (ii) (b)-Proviso providing that when 1Jie Government servant is . 
convicted by a competent authority and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsistence 
allowance shall bi! reduced to a non1inciI amount of one rupee per month till the 
date of his remo~al or dismissal or reinstatement by the competent authority or 
till the date of acquittal by an appellate court, constitutional validity of-Words 
and Phrases-"Sente~ced to imprisonment", whether means "condemned to prisofr 
upon conviction~'-Right to e111ployment to be treated as a new form of property. 
Legal position of. 
Rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules 1959 provides for payment 
of normal subsistence allowance to a civil servant on his suspension from 
service for the reasons stated under the ~ervice rules. Whlle the first proviso 
to the Rule places a bar on tl:e Goverrunent servant to .take up any other 
avocation during the· period of his suspension, the second proviso thereto 
reduces the subsistence allowance to rupee one per month when the Govern-
ment servant is convicted by a competent authority and sentenced to imprison-
ment till date of his removal or dismissal or reinstate·ment by the competent 
authority unless he was acquitted by appellate court in the meanwhile in which 
case he will draw subsistence allowance and at the normal rate from the date 
of acquittal. 
Chandrabhan Tale, the respondent in the Civil Appeal No. 1976/77. one 
. Vithoba. the petitiOner in C.M.P. 6117 /80 who has Sought to intervene in the 
Civil Appeal and Ba ban the petitioner in W.P. 607 of 1980 in the Supreme 
Court, were all civil servants of the State of Maharashtra the appe1Iant and 
the respondent in the C.M.'P. and W.P. at the relevant time. Chandra Bhan 
Tale was a Head Constable while Vithoba was a Deputy Engirieer and Personal 
Assistant to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Baban was a 
Juniof Clerk in the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Kamptee. Chandrabhan Tale 
an~ Baban haYe been convicted under Section 161 1.P.C. and Section 5(1) (d) -
read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while Vfrhoba has 
been convicted under Section 5(1) (e) read with Section 5(2) of that Act in 
separate cases. All of them have been sentenced to various terms of imprison~ 
ment by the Trial Court. Chandrabhait Tale was'. on bail pending trial, and he 
was released even a"fter conviction to e_nable him to move the High Court in 
appeal and continued to be on bail till he was finally acquitted by the High 
Court and was, therefore, never lodged in prison on conviction by the Trial 
Court. Vithoba was on bail pending the trial and on conviction and on 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 s.c.R. 
admitting the Criminal appeal, the High Court has granted bail with the result 
he t_oo was not lodged in the prison on his conviction. Baban was also con-
victed and sente1u,:ed by the Special Judge, Nagpur but since he has been 
granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr!.) 800 dated 14-3-1980, he too 
had not been lodged in prison. 
All the three have been granted by their competent administrative 
authorities a reduced subsistence ailowancc of rupee one only from the date 
of their conviction when tlie constitutionality of the proviso to Rule 151 was 
challenged by Chandrabhan, the Bombay High Court, found (!) that the 
object and purpose of the rule is to provide subsistence alJowance 'pending sus-
pension of ~he civil servant and (2) the subsistence allowance mentioned in the . 
1nain rule and the second proviso means a bare 'minimun1 amount which can be 
reasonably provided for a civil servant who is kept under suspension arid 
without work and thefefore not entitled to full wages. The Court interpreted 
the words "sentenced to imprison.ment" occurring in the second proviso to 
mean "cOnden1ncd to prison upon conviction" and heJd that a civil servant 
who has been convicted and sentenced but has not been sent to prison and is 
·otherwise free conld not fall u~dcr the category of persons "sentenced to 
imprisonment" and, therefore the case of Chandrabhan who was on bail not 
falling under the proviso to.Rule 151 would automatically entitle him to normal 
subsis~ence allowance. The High .Court did not consider the que

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