STATE OF KARNATAKA versus G.M. HAYATH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 16-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
G.M. HAYATH 
AUGlJ~ T 16, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Kamataka State Police Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, 1965 : Rule 
6(1). 
C 
Recruitment-Prescription of ceiling on father's income-Eligibility 
critti1ia-A niuslini recruited as e1nployee as a general candidate on his own 
merit and not as a backward class-Allegation of producing wrong income 
certificate at the time of rec111itment-£11quiry-Stoppage of increment without 
cumulative effect-Challenge-Tribunal holding that the order of stoppage of 
D increment was illegal-Appeal preferred by State-Held the i11come of 
employee's gra11dfather from land and properties cannot be included in his 
income since the concept of the joint family is not applicable to the persons 
professing Islam-Accordingly, the income of the grandfather cannot be in-
cluded to be the income of the respondent-The Sales Tax Officer is com-
E petent only to assess the annual tumover of the income and assessable 
income has to be assesse!}-But his ce1tificate of income including 10% more 
Oil the assessable income of the father, a petty trader, cannot, therefore, be 
conclusive-Held impugned order does not wa1Tant any inteiference. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 
F 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.92 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore in A. No. 5675 of 1989. 
G 
M. Veerappa for the Appellant. 
Santosh Hegde, R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave grated. 
742 
-
STATEv. G.M.HAYATH 
743 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
A 
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 
certificate at the time of his recruitment to the effect that the income of B 
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 cumula-
tive 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 
c 
the minority community (muslim). The father of the respondent was a petty 
trader. The Sales Tax Officer who is only an assessing authority, cannot D 
add 10% of this 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 very 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 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 Commis-
sion to show whether he was selected and appointed as general candidate. 
That record has not been placed on record. Even otherwise also, we are 
E 
F 
G 
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 persons 
professing Islam. The respondent being a Muslim is governed by his own 
personal law. Accordingly, the income of the grandfather cannot be in-
cluded to be the income of the respondent. As regards the income of his H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
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 c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.