http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: G. SUNDARASAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  668            1995 SCC  (4) 644  JT 1995 (5)   568        1995 SCALE  (4)464

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                         O R D E R      The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the quota of Scheduled Castes in the Income-tax Department and ultimately he rose  to the  status as Income Tax Inspector. Three years prior to  retirement, he was called upon to prove that he is scheduled caste  and departmental  enquiry was  held. He was given opportunity and it was found, relying upon the entries in service  book, S.S.L.C.  Register and  other  documentary evidence, that he is not a member of the scheduled caste and as such  he is  not  eligible  to  enjoy  the  status  as  a scheduled caste  in the Government service. On that premise, they imposed,  under Rule  14 of CCS (CCA Rules), punishment of forfeiting  his pension. Calling  in question  that order dated December  9,1987, the   petitioner  filed  an O.A.  in the     Tribunal.     The  Tribunal,   after     elaborately considering   the   evidence   on  record,  confirmed    the finding of the disciplinary authority that  the   petitioner had   wrongfully   gained   appointment against   the   post reserved    for   Scheduled   Castes,    and  imposition  of penalty of forfeiture of pension was legal.      We have  gone through the reasoning of the Tribunal. We find that the same are perfectly justified. It is vehemently contended by  the learned  counsel for  the petitioner,  Sri Srinivasan, that  a certificate  was issued  in 1956  by the competent authority  stating that the petitioner belonged to the  community   recognised  as   a  scheduled   castes  and petitioner’s  grandfather   belonged   to   Thotti   Naicken community and  he continued  in office  for the period of 30 years. At  this belated stage, it cannot held that he is not a scheduled caste and cannot be called upon to prove it once over.      We  cannot   appreciate  this   stand  taken   by   the petitioner. It  is for  the  petitioner  to  prove  that  he belongs to the scheduled caste specified in the Presidential Notification in  relation to  the State to which he  belongs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

and   was born.   In  S.S.L.C.  register, the petitioner did not claim  his status  as a  scheduled caste.  On the  other hand, his   father’s name  was mentioned  as Ganga Naidu and he  claimed   to  be   Hindu.  In  those  circumstances  the Certificate obtained  from the  Revenue Authorities  in  the year 1956 is obviously a false certificate.      Under these  circumstances the penalty of forfeiture of pension cannot  be said  to be  unwarranted. The petition is accordingly dismissed.