A civil servant under suspension is entitled to normal subsistence allowance even after conviction by the trial court pending consideration of his appeal until the appeal is disposed of finally.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from proceeding with notice issued by 2nd respondent in Letter/Memo No.A1/13275/2004 (L.Ref) dated 23.07.2018 without making payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent to continue to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from December 2017 pending disposal of Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.776 of 2017 on the file of this Court.)

1. The writ petition has been filed in the nature of writ of mandamus seeking a direction to grant subsistence allowance to the petitioner herein from December, 2017 to till October, 2018, even though the relief sought is slightly different worded.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through the then Madras Public Service Commission and was allotted to join duty in Chengalpet revenue unit and he joined duty on 11.01.1973. He then rendered 25 years of service and was awarded with Indira Vikas Pathra vide proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of Land Reforms dated dated 20.11.1988. He was also posted as Superintendent and completed 10 years of service as Superintendent. He was then nominated for the city list of Tahsildar for the year 1999 and he was awarded with three appreciation letters issued by the then Collector, Namakkal.

3. On the basis of a complaint, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner herein and consequent to that he was placed under suspension. Such criminal case was taken cognizance by the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal, in Spl.C.C.No.54 of 2002 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989. The petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 28.11.2017 and sentenced to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 and also similar sentence and fine for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.776 of 2017, which is now pending before this Court. The petitioner had filed an application seeking suspension of sentence and that was granted on 11.12.2017. In the meanwhile since the petitioner was convicted, the subsistence allowance which was paid to him was discontinued by the respondents. Thereafter the respondents issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to clarify as to why he should not be dismissed and after considering his request proceeded to dismiss him from service on 04.10.2018. In the present writ petition, the actual relief is continuation of payment of subsistence allowance from 28.11.2017 the date of conviction till 04.10.2018 the date of dismissal from service. The other aspects regarding his services can be examined only on passing final judgment in the afore mentioned criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.776 of 2017.

4. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 1983 (3) SCC 387 State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan Tale. In that particular case, the petitioner therein was convicted by the criminal Court and he had filed an appeal before the High Court and when the High Court was called upon to examine the issue of payment of subsistence allowance, a direction was issued to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 per month as subsistence allowance. The matter was taken up before the Honourable Supreme Court and the learned Judges by a detailed judgment with respect to this particular issue, observed as follows:

“20. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have found in the judgment under appeal that the object and purpose of the main Rule 151 is to provide for subsistence allowance pending suspension of the civil servant and that the subsistence allowance mentioned in the main Rule and the second proviso means a bare minimum which can reasonably be provide