STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus CHANDRABHAN TALE

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus CHANDRABHAN TALE

The second proviso to Rule 151(i)(ii)(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 is unconstitutional and void as it reduces subsistence allowance for suspended government servants convicted and sentenced to imprisonment to a nominal amount of Rupee 1 per month pending appeal, which is unreasonable, illusory, and stultifies the right of appeal, thereby violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Suspended civil servants are entitled to normal subsistence allowance during the pendency of appeal against conviction, irrespective of bail or imprisonment status.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondent: Chandrabhan Tale; Intervener in Civil Appeal and Petitioner in WP: Vithoba; Petitioner in WP: Baban
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 July 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal, Writ Petition, Civil Miscellaneous Petition / Appeal by Special Leave and Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Writ Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Subsistence Allowance, Suspension of Civil Servants, Articles 14, 16, 21, 311(2) of the Constitution, Property and Employment Rights
Constitutional Law Service Law Subsistence Allowance Suspension of Civil Servants Articles 14, 16, 21, 311(2) of the Constitution Property and Employment Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Chandrabhan Tale

Respondent

Vithoba

Intervener in Civil Appeal and Petitioner in WP

Baban

Petitioner in WP

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal, Writ Petition, Civil Miscellaneous Petition / Appeal by Special Leave and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Constitutional validity of second proviso to Rule 151(i)(ii)(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 reducing subsistence allowance to Rupee 1 per month for convicted and sentenced government servants pending appeal
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'sentenced to imprisonment' under service rules
  3. 3 Right to subsistence allowance pending appeal against conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The second proviso to Rule 151(i)(ii)(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 is unconstitutional and void as it reduces subsistence allowance for suspended government servants convicted and sentenced to imprisonment to a nominal amount of Rupee 1 per month pending appeal, which is unreasonable, illusory, and stultifies the right of appeal, thereby violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Suspended civil servants are entitled to normal subsistence allowance during the pendency of appeal against conviction, irrespective of bail or imprisonment status.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Writ Petition allowed

Orders

  • Second proviso to Rule 151(i)(ii)(b) of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 struck down as void
  • Civil servant under suspension entitled to normal subsistence allowance pending appeal against conviction