Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G.M. HAYATH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (8) 193
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The
impugned order of the Tribunal made in OA No.5675/89 on
March 23, 1992 is founded upon the disciplinary proceedings
taken by the appellant for the alleged misconduct of the
respondent by producing a certificates at the time of his
recruitment to the effect that the income of his father was
more than Rs.1,000/- per annum. On that premise, they
conducted an enquiry under the conduct rules; found him
guilty under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka State Police
Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, 1965 and imposed a penalty
of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The
respondent challenged the same. The Tribunal found that he
was selected in his own merit as a general candidate and,
therefore, the income has no reference. It was also found -
that the income of his grandfather from the land properties
cannot be clubbed as the concept of joint family is
inapplicable to the respondent who is a member hailing from
the majority community (muslim). The father of the
respondent was a petty trader. The Sales Tax Officer who is
only an assessing authority, cannot add 10% of his
assessable income to show that his income is more than Rs.
750/- p.a. On either of these grounds, the order imposing
penalty of stoppage of one increment was held illegal. Thus,
this appeal by special leave.
Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the State, contended
that the view of the Tribunal is not correct in law. We find
no force in the contention. As seen, the vary preamble of
the order of the Tribunal does indicate that the respondent
had in fact contended that he was selected as a general
candidate on his own merit and not as a backward class. If
that be the position, obviously the income criteria is
clearly inapplicable. Since the respondent does not have any
record in that behalf, it is the duty of the State to
produce the selection list prepared by the Public Service
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Commission to show whether he was selected and appointed as
general candidate. That record has not been placed on
record. Even otherwise also, we are in agreement with the
Tribunal in its findings on merits. The income of his
grandfather from land and properties cannot be included in
his income since the concept of the joint family is not
applicable to the presents professing Islam. The respondent
being a Muslim is governed by his own personal law.
Accordingly, the income of the grandfather cannot be
included to be the income of the respondent. As regards the
income of his father, he is a petty trader. Therefore, the
Sales Tax Officer is competent only to assess the annual
turnover of the income and assessable income has to be
assessed. But his certificate of income including 10% more
on the assessable income cannot, therefore, be conclusive.
In either case, we do not find any merit warranting
interference to produce.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.