and s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the prevention of companyruption act 1947 in the companyrt of the special judge wardhe in special case number 3 of 1974.
5000 under s. 5 1 e read with s. 2 of the prevention of companyruption act 1947.
he has been companyvicted by the special judge in criminal case number 9 of 1976 on 8.5.1979 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.
in these circumstances it is alleged that the petitioner is vitally interested in supporting the high companyrts judgment challenged in the above civil appeal and it is prayed that he should be allowed to intervene.
that writ petition was allowed by the high companyrt by an order which is number under challenge in the above civil appeal.
but after his conviction by the special judge on 14.1.1976 the superintendent of police in supersession of his earlier order dated 31.5.1974 passed an order dated 22.1.1976 directing that from the date of the respondents companyviction and pending companysideration of the appeal he would be entitled to only a numberinal suspension allowance of re.
number 3394 of 1977.
the special judge companyvicted him of both the offences on 14.1.1976 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under s. 161 i.p.c.
in that writ petition it was pointed out that the high companyrts judgment has been stayed by this courts order dated 26.8.1977 in c.m.p number 3394 of 1977.
1 per month to the civil servant who is prohibited from engaging himself in any other avocation during the period of suspension companytravenes even article 21 of the companystitution on the ground that the only logical and possible result would be the death of the civil servant and the members of his family due to starvation.
he further companytends that the reduction of the subsistence allowance to re.
writ petition number 607 of 1980 has been filed by one baban a junior clerk in the office of the naib tehsildar kamptee number under suspension.
civil miscellaneous petition number 6117 of 1980 which has been ordered to be heard alongwith the above civil appeal is by one vithoba deputy engineer and personal assistant to the executive engineer zilla parishad nagpur a civil servant of the appellant state.
by government resolution dated 11.7.1979 a subsistence allowance at re.
he filed writ petition number 2617 of 1979 in the bombay high companyrt challenging that order of the government and praying for payment of subsistence allowance at the numbermal rate as per the high companyrts judgment in special civil application number 4292 of 1976.
criminal number 800 of 1980.
he has been placed under suspension with effect from 11.5.1978 and was receiving subsistence allowance at the numbermal rate as provided for in the main rule 151.
the main rule 151 of the bombay civil services rules 1959 provides for payment of numbermal subsistence allowance to a civil servant on his suspension.
he too challenges the order reducing the subsistence allowance to re.
rule nisi has been issued in the writ petition with the direction to post it alongwith the above civil appeal.
numbercounter affidavit has been filed in this civil miscellaneous petition.
the superintendent of police wardha the companypetent authority by order dated 31.5.1974 suspended the respondent and allowed him numbermal suspension allowance.
he has filed criminal appeal number 183 of 1979 in the bombay high companyrt on 28.6.1979 and it was admitted on 2.7.1979 and he has been released on bail.
1 per month has been ordered to be paid to him rejecting his application for companytinued payment of subsistence allowance at the numbermal rate.
at the relevant time.
these three persons chandrabhan tale vithoba and baban were kept under suspension pending trial of the criminal cases filed against them and they were paid numbermal subsistence allowance under the main rule 151 of the bombay civil services rules 1959 from the dates of their suspension until the dates on which they were companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the trial companyrt.
and for one year and fine of rs.
subsequently criminal application number 146 of 1976 was treated as special civil application number 4292 of 1976 under article 226 of the constitution and dealt with by the division bench as such.
baban has filed writ petition number 607 of 1980 in this companyrt itself challenging the order reducing his subsistence allowance to the numberinal sum.
the petitioners further companytention is that subsistence allowance of re.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 30th september 1976 of the bombay high companyrt in c.a.
an application for intervention with writ petition number 607 of 1980.
chandrabhan tale the respondent in the civil appeal vithoba the petitioner in the c.m.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1976 of 1977.
he has filed the writ petition under these circumstances to declare the said second proviso to be void and violative of articles 14 16 and 21 of the companystitution and to issue a direction to the respondent state to pay numbermal subsistence allowance until the date of disposal of his appeal by this companyrt.
1 per month under the said second proviso companytending that subsistence allowance is required to support himself and his family number only during the trial of the criminal case but also during the pendency of the appeal in the high companyrt and the special leave petition in this companyrt and that the second proviso contravenes articles 14 and 16 of the companystitution.
petition number 6117 of 1980.
but from the date of their companyviction the subsistence allowance has been ordered to be reduced to the numberinal sum of re.
and s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the prevention of companyruption act by the special judge nagpur in special case number 6 of 1975.
1 per month under the second proviso to rule 151 1 ii b of the rules.
under article 32 of the companystitution b. bhasme and m.n.
we have to guard ourselves against any such result.
bobde for the intervener in appeal and petitioner in wp.
the learned singal judge issued numberice to the advocate general of the state and directed the matter to be placed before a division bench of the high companyrt having regard to the importance of the matter.
1 per month only for the period during which he is lodged in prison on companyviction and number for the subsequent period after he is released on bail pending companysideration of his appeal against the trial companyrts judgment.
1 per month is illusory and seriously prejudicial to his endeavour to secure his acquittal in the superior companyrts.
he has been released on bail by this companyrts order dated 14.3.1980 in l.p.
1 per month by filing writ petition number 2617 of 1979 in the high companyrt in which he had prayed for payment of numbermal subsistence allowance even after the date of his conviction by the trial companyrt as had been held by the high court in the petition initiated by chandrabhan tale.
sanghi and r.n.
i agree with the order proposed by my brother.
and civil misc.
and writ petition.
evidentially writ petition number 2617 of 1979 filed by vithoba has also been stayed by the high companyrt pending disposal of the above civil appeal.
his criminal appeal number 30 of 1976 was admitted by by a learned single judge of the bombay high companyrt on 20.2.1976 and he was allowed to companytinue on bail on the same terms pending companysideration of the appeal.
after service of that order the respondent filed criminal application number 146 of 1976 before the learned single judge of the bombay high court under s. 482 cr.
number 4292 of 1976.
shroff for the appellant in appeal and respondent in wp.
100 under s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the prevention of companyruption act 1947.
a. bobde s.d.
no counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition.
1 per month as per the second proviso to rule 151 1 ii b of the bombay civil services rules 1959.
he was on bail pending trial and he is on bail even after his companyviction and is number under going the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial companyrt.
varadarajan j. the appeal by special leave is preferred by the state of maharashtra against the division bench judgment of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number 4292 of 1976 holding that the second proviso to rule 151 i ii b of the bombay civil services rules 1959 will apply to the respondent chandrabhan tale for purposes of payment of subsistence allowance at the numberinal rate of re.
the respondent chandrabhan tale who was a head constable in the appellants police force was prosecuted for offences under s. 161 i.p.c.
mudliar a.k.
the petitioner baban has been convicted under s. 161 i.p.c.
challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.1.1976 of the superintendent of police mainly on two grounds i that he is on bail and would number be governed by the said proviso and ii that the proviso if applicable to him is violative of article 16 of the constitution.
who has sought to intervene in the civil appeal and bawan the petitioner in the writ petition were all civil servants of the state of maharashtra the appellant in the civil appeal and respondent in the c.m.p.
the respondent was on bail pending trial and was released on bail even after his companyviction by the trial companyrt to enable him to file an appeal in the high court against his companyviction.
