STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. G M HAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(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 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. 1,000. 00 per annum. On that premise, they conducted an enquiry under theconduct 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. 00 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.