1996 INSC 1110
                                                 State of Karnataka

                                                           Vs

                                                     G.M. Hayath

                                         Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 1996

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      16.08.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. The impugned order of the Tribunal made in OA No. 5675 of 1989 on 23-3-1992 is founded upon
of 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 his father
was not more than Rs 1000 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 minority 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 per
annum. On either of these grounds, the order imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment was
held illegal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the State, contended that the view of the Tribunal is not
correct in law. We fond 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 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 Commission to
show whether he was selected and appointed as a 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 persons 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.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.