G. SUNDARSANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                          G. SUNDARSAN                                         A
                                v.
                     UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                              JULY 12, 1995

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                              B

     Se1vice Law:

     Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules: Rule
14-Foifeiture of pension-Person e11te1ing service under Scheduled caste        C
quota-Actually not belonging to Scheduled Cast~Held.: Foifeiture justified.

      The petitioner was appointed under the Scheduled Caste quota in
the Income tax Department and he became Income tax Inspector. Three
years prior to his retirement, departmental proceedings were initiated
against him and it was proved that he was not a member of Scheduled            D
Caste and was thus not eligible to enjoy such status. Under Rule 14 of the
CCS(CCA) Rules, his pension was forfeited. Petitioner approached the
Tribunal and it confirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority. Hence
this Special Leave Peti~ion.

      Dismissing the Petition, this Court                                      E

       HELD : 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
                                                                               F
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. Hence
the forfeiture of pension cannot be said to be unwarrarnted. [152-F-G]

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) G
No. 12376 of 1995.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A.No. 694 of 1993.

      S. Srinivasan for the Petitioner.                                        H
                                     51
    52                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.                ,-
A          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the quote 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
B   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
c   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 appoint-
    ment against the post reserved for Scheduled Casts, and imposition of
D   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
E   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.             I

           We cannot appreciate this stand taken by the petitioner. It is for the
F   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
G   certificate obtained from the Revenue Authorities in the year 1956 is
    obviously a false certificate.

          Under these circumstances the penalty of forfeiture of pension can-
    not be said to be unwarranted. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

    G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.