Judgment : The prayer in W.P. No.4185 of 1993 is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Preliminary Order in Ref.R.M.V.(T), dated 112. 1992 the final order dated 21. 93 passed by the Regional Manager v. State Bank of Travancore, Madras, the first respondent herein and the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai the 3rd respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.l 18774/84, Adi.8, dated 14. 1986 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service of the first respondent bank with all benefits, continuity of service and all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post held by the petitioner. 2. In the latter writ petition, namely W.P. No.4186 of 1993, the prayer is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai in Na.Ka.No.118774/84 Adi-8, 14. 1986 by the first respondent and quash the same. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are briefly stated hereunder. .4. According to the petitioner, he and his ancestors belong to Hindu ‘Kammara’ community notified as a scheduled Tribe in the state of Tamil Nadu. He is a B.Com Graduate and hie was selected by the Regional Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras for the clerical Cadre in 1984 - Scheduled Caste/ Tribe Candidates in the competitive examination held for appointment to the said post. The petitioner produced documents and joined the bank on 11. 1984 and posted to Karur Branch bank. It is further contended that while, so, the first respondent in the first writ petition framed a charge on 4. 1991 stating that the petitioner had made false statement in connection with the employment in the bank. According to the petitioner only in the said charge memo for the first time on 4. 1991 it was revealed mat the District Collector, Madurai has cancelled the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Usilampatty. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 24. 1991, denying the charges. The first respondent appointed an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry between 23. 1992 and 27. 1992. 1991 it was revealed mat the District Collector, Madurai has cancelled the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Usilampatty. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 24. 1991, denying the charges. The first respondent appointed an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry between 23. 1992 and 27. 1992. During the enquiry, according to the petitioner he came to know that on the orders of the first respondent bank, Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty required the bank to surrender original community certificate produced by the petitioner for cancellation as ordered by the District Collector by his communication dated 24. 1989. On receipt of the communication, Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty and first respondent bank issued show cause notice on 12. 1989 calling upon the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he belong to Hindu ‘Kammara’ community. It is also contended that only at the instance of Indian Airlines, a verification was undertaken by the Collector of Madurai and behind his back proceedings had been taken by the Collector as well Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty. The enquiry Officer found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and the first respondent bank communicated the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his objection on 11. 1992. The first respondent after accepting the preliminary order dated 112. 1992 issued another notice informing that why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation to the preliminary order on 1. 1993. By order dated 21. 1993 the first respondent bank confirmed the punishment of dismissal already proposed in the preliminary order dated 112. 1992. In those circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the first writ petition namely W.P. No.4185-of 1993 challenging the proceedings initiated by the first respondent. No doubt in the very same petition, he has also challenged the proceedings of the District Collector, the third respondent in the said writ petition. 5. In the second writ petition namely W.P. No.4186 of 1993 the petitioner challenges the order of the District Collector stated above namely 15.4 J986 on various grounds. 6. The District Collector, Madurai has filed a common counter affidavit disputing all the averments made in the above writ petitions. It is contended that the Manager, Indian Airlines, Madras called for a report from him about the genuineness of the Hindu Kammara Community certificate issued to the petitioner for appointment as Accounts Assistant in Indian Airlines. 6. The District Collector, Madurai has filed a common counter affidavit disputing all the averments made in the above writ petitions. It is contended that the Manager, Indian Airlines, Madras called for a report from him about the genuineness of the Hindu Kammara Community certificate issued to the petitioner for appointment as Accounts Assistant in Indian Airlines. In turn the District Collector asked the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty to report in this regard. The petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty and he was enquired and a statement was obtained from him. It is also contended that the petitioner was given sufficient time to produce the evidence. However, he has not produced any document to prove that he belong to Hindu Kammara Community. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted a report to the Collector in his proceedings dated 18. 84 stating that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kammara Community, it is further contended in the counter-affidavit that before cancelling the community certificate, the writ petitioner was given another chance to prove his claim and again he did not produce any document or evidence in support of his claim. Thereafter by the Collector’s proceedings dated 14. 1985 Hindu Kammara Community certificate issued to the petitioner on 14. 1986 by the Tahsildar, Usilampatty was cancelled, In the counter affidavit, it is also once again explained that before sending the report, the Revenue Divisional Officer has enquired the petitioner and after giving sufficient opportunity only the report furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer has been considered by the District Collector. In those circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 7. On behalf of State Bank of Travancore counter-affidavit have been filed in both the writ petitions, disputing the various averments of the petitioner. They had stated that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and all particulars were provided to the petitioner. They also relied upon the order of the District Collector before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. 8. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.N. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr.Sreekrishnan for State Bank of Travancore and the learned Government Advocate for the District Collector. 9. They also relied upon the order of the District Collector before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. 8. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.N. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr.Sreekrishnan for State Bank of Travancore and the learned Government Advocate for the District Collector. 9. A reading of the above pleadings, as well as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly shows that on the basis of the request made by the Indian Airlines, the District Collector in turn directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector) Usilampatti to conduct the enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate obtained by the petitioner. .10. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially brought to my notice that even before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner was not given proper and effective opportunity to put forth his case. Thereafter, the petitioner was not given any opportunity from the hands of the District Collector Madurai. With regard to the report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer and cancellation of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Usilampatti on 14. 1984. In other words, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is irrespective of the defect in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner was not given oppfrtunity to put forth his case before the proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai dated 14. 1986. He relied on two decisions namely, D.Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ L.R. 482, and D.Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ L.R. 484. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector is duty bound to furnish the copy of the entire report of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector) before making any decision with regard to the community certificate already issued by the Tahsildar. In this case, in as much as the Collector has not furnished report of the Revenue Divisional Officer before passing the impugned order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the above referred decisions, the impugned order is liable to set aside. He further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if reinstatement is ordered and petitioner is not pressing the claim regarding backwages from the date of termination till the date of disposal. 11. He further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if reinstatement is ordered and petitioner is not pressing the claim regarding backwages from the date of termination till the date of disposal. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for State Bank of Travancore and the learned Government Advocate submitted that in as much as the petitioner was given ample opportunity before the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as before the District Collector, Madurai. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and prayed for dismissal of the both the writ petitions. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. .13. Now, I have to consider the impugned order of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 14. 1986 and the subsequent order of the removal of service by the bank, in these two writ petitions, If the petitioner is able to prove that the impugned order of the Collector cancelling the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar is bad, it is needless to mention that the subsequent order of the Bank terminating the services of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In those circumstances, I shall first consider the order of the District Collector dated 14. 1986 as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I Have carefully perused the said order. No doubt, it is true that the impugned order of the Collector reveals that, pursuant to the direction by him, the Sub-Collector, Usilampatti has Conducted the enquiry with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the community certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 14. 1984. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that, at the time of direction by the District Collector to the Sub-Collector to enquire and send a report, according to him, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to put forth his case. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after receipt of the report from the Sub-Collector, without furnishing the copy of the report said to have been submitted by the Sub-Collector, the District Collector merely approved the report of the Sub Collector and cancelled the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after receipt of the report from the Sub-Collector, without furnishing the copy of the report said to have been submitted by the Sub-Collector, the District Collector merely approved the report of the Sub Collector and cancelled the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Though in the counter affidavit it is mentioned that an opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Sub-Collector it is not clear whether the petitioner was given proper opportunity, after direction by the District Collector to the Sub-Collector to conduct enquiry and submit a report with regard to the community certificate. Moreover, it is not disputed that on receipt of the report of the Sub-Collector, the District Collector has sent a copy of the report before passing the impugned order. .14. In the first decision namely D.Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ L.R. 482, the following observation of their lordships is relevant for the point in issue in the present writ petition and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder: ."A copy of the report made by the Revenue Divisional Officer be furnished to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner be given time to file his objections and adduce evidence, if any, and then the Collector shall decide the matter after hearing the petitioner, as to whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community or not. In the event it is held that the petitioner does not belong to" Konda Reddy community, the Collector shall cancel the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community and intimate to respondents 1 and 2. Until such a decision is communicated by the Collector, the respondents 1 and 2 shall not proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the communication dated 5. 1994 sent by the Collector compliance in four months". 15. The very same view has been once again reiterated in a subsequent decision reported in D.Illamaran v. Government of India, 1996 Writ L.R. 484 as a matter of fact in the latter decision. Their Lordships ob-served that furnishing a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Petitioner at the end of the hearing before the collector is not a sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. 16. Their Lordships ob-served that furnishing a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Petitioner at the end of the hearing before the collector is not a sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. 16. I have already stated that a perusal of the impugned order of the Collector dated 14. 1986 does not show that a copy of the report of the Sub-Collector has been furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. In view of the said infirmity as well as the principles laid down in the above referred decisions, the impugned order of the Collector, Madurai, dated 14. 1986 is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. 17.I have already stated that the second respondent in W.R No.4186 of 1993 has passed the impugned order of termination following the order of the District Collector, dated 14. 1986 which is impugned in the first writ petition. Accordingly both the writ petitions are allowed. Orders of the first respondent dated 112. 1992, final order dated 21. 1993 as well as the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai, dated 14. 1986 are hereby quashed and respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No.4185 of 1993 are directed to reinstate the petitioner. As stated at the outset by the learned counsel for the petitioner since he is not pressing for the salaries and another benefits during the nonemployment period I am not passing any order in this regard, except a direction to reinstate. 18. Since, I have quashed the impugned order dated 14. 1986 on the ground of violation of natural justice as stated in the above referred two Division Bench decisions, I hereby direct the District Collector, Madurai that if any enquiry is conducted with regard to the community certificate issued by Tahsildar, Usilampatti, dated 14. 1984 he has to follow the principles stated in the above decisions by supplying a copy of the report of the Sub-Collector and after hearing the petitioner in person. 19. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.