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 companyducted an enquiry under the companyduct 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.
It was also found that the income of his grandfather from the land properties cannot be clubbed as the companycept of joint family is inapplicable to the respondent who is a member hailing from the majority companymunity muslim .
The Tribunal found that he was selected in his own merit as a general candidate and, therefore, the income has numberreference.
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.
On either of these grounds, the order imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment was held illegal.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
The father of the respondent was a petty trader.
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
The respondent challenged the same.
750/ p.a.
