G. Sundarasan vs Union Of India & Anr
- SCC(1995) 4 SCC 644
- Neutral1995 INSC 393
- AIRAIR 1996 SC 668
- SCR[1995] Supp (2) SCR 51
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person appointed to a Government position in the reserved quota for Scheduled Castes is found through departmental enquiry, relying on contemporaneous documentary evidence such as service book entries and S.S.L.C. Register, to have falsely claimed Scheduled Caste status at the time of appointment, the burden lies on that person to prove affiliation to a Scheduled Caste as specified in the Presidential Notification applicable to their State of birth; a certificate of Scheduled Caste status issued years earlier cannot shield the person from challenge to the veracity of that claim when contemporaneous records contradict it. The penalty of forfeiture of pension imposed under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules for wrongfully gaining appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes is legally justified and not unwarranted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free