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.