Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Authority's Forfeiture of Pension in Scheduled Caste Misrepresentation Case. Petitioner's Failure to Prove Scheduled Caste Status Under Presidential Notification, Contradicted by SSLC Register and False 1956 Certificate, Justified Penalty Under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules.

Challenge to order of Central Administrative Tribunal confirming forfeiture of pension imposed by disciplinary authority for falsely claiming Scheduled Caste status in the Income-tax Department.

Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated December 9, 1987 imposing penalty of forfeiture of pension and challenge to the Tribunal's confirmation of that penalty.

After departmental enquiry, petitioner was found not to belong to Scheduled Caste and penalty of forfeiture of pension was imposed under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules; Tribunal confirmed the penalty, leading to the present petition.

Tribunal confirmed the disciplinary authority's finding that the petitioner had wrongfully gained appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes and that imposition of penalty of forfeiture of pension was legal.

Whether the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Caste specified in the Presidential Notification for the State to which he belonged and was born, and could retain the Scheduled Caste status and pension benefits. Whether the penalty of forfeiture of pension imposed under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was justified on the ground of false Scheduled Caste claim.

Petitioner argued that a certificate issued in 1956 by the competent authority stated that he belonged to a community recognised as Scheduled Caste, his grandfather belonged to Thotti Naicken community, and after 30 years of service he could not be called upon to prove his Scheduled Caste status again. Respondent argued, based on service book, SSLC Register and other documentary evidence, that petitioner was not a member of Scheduled Caste; SSLC register did not claim Scheduled Caste status, father's name was Ganga Naidu and Hindu, therefore the 1956 certificate was false and penalty of forfeiture of pension was justified.

A government servant claiming Scheduled Caste status must prove that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste specified in the Presidential Notification in relation to the State to which he belongs and was born. Entries in the SSLC register and service book showing no Scheduled Caste claim and a father's name indicating different caste make a contrary certificate from Revenue Authorities unreliable and false. Penalty of forfeiture of pension under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules is justified where appointment was obtained on false Scheduled Caste claim, and long service does not cure the initial misrepresentation.

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.

Petitioner was appointed as Income-tax Inspector in the Scheduled Caste quota in the Income-tax Department. Three years prior to retirement, a departmental enquiry was held, and it was found that he was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of forfeiting pension under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules by order dated December 9, 1987. Petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which confirmed the disciplinary authority's finding and the penalty. Petitioner then approached the Supreme Court challenging that order.

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14