ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.8.1990 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent- bank on 26.7.1982 claiming that he belongs to Kattunaicken community, which is notified as a scheduled tribe. The respondent- bank forwarded a complaint to the District Collector on 21.12.1987 with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry on 29.9.1987 and 28.12.1987. On 25.1.1988, the Assistant Collector of Salem sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Salem informing him that the certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one and further requested the Superintendent of Police to take up further investigation and file a criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein. 3. On 10.12.1988, the respondent- bank served a show cause notice on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner’s services should not be terminated for having produced a forged caste certificate in support of the material information. On 17.1.1989, the petitioner also submitted his explanation. On 8.12.1989, the petitioner’s services were terminated. 4. As against the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.16225 of 1989. By an order dated 5.7.1990, this Court allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter, to the respondent- bank to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the respondent- bank passed the impugned order. 5. Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not hold any enquiry. The petitioner was not aware about the materials on which the Enquiry Officer found that the certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one. A copy of the enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner. Further, no final orders were passed by the Collector cancelling the community certificate on the basis of the report filed by the Enquiry Officer. Till such final order is passed by the appropriate authority, no action can be taken against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Apart from this, he further contended that the respondent- bank had issued a show cause notice on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer as stated in the counter affidavit. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Apart from this, he further contended that the respondent- bank had issued a show cause notice on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer as stated in the counter affidavit. When the respondent- bank is taking disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent- bank is duty bound to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. The non-furnishing of such a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer along with the show cause notice vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside. 7. On the contrary, Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer held the enquiry, in which, the petitioner had also participated. Thereafter, the report has been submitted stating that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one. A criminal complaint has, also been filed and the same is pending. The petitioner is fully aware about these facts. The respondent- bank issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated for the production of a forged community certificate. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the impugned order of termination was passed. Further, the petitioner had signed a declaration that the particulars furnished by him in the application are correct. Now that the declaration made by the petitioner with regard to the community to which he belongs had been found to be false, his services had been terminated. When once the petitioner asserts that he belongs to a particular community, the burden is on him to establish the same. The petitioner having failed to discharge such a burden, the impugned proceedings is valid. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Revenue Officer finding that the community certificate submitted by the petitioner is forged one, the said report becomes final. The action taken by the respondent- bank on the basis of the report cannot at all be questioned. 9. This Court carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel on either side. 10. The petitioner had been in the services of the respondent- bank. The action taken by the respondent- bank on the basis of the report cannot at all be questioned. 9. This Court carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel on either side. 10. The petitioner had been in the services of the respondent- bank. A complaint has been received from one Thangaraj, which necessitated the respondent- bank to make an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner. The respondent- bank addressed the Collector of Salem by their letter dated 21.12.1987 requesting him to verity the community of the petitioner as well as the genuineness of the community certificate and submit a report. An enquiry was taken up the Assistant Collector of Salem. Ultimately he sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Salem on 21.5.1988, which is as follows: “From Thiru Jag Mohan Singh Raju, I.A.S. Assistant Collector, Salem- The Superintendent of Police, Salem. ROC.10525/87(A4) dated 25.1.1988 Sir, Sub: Community Certificate - Verification of the genuineness - Attur Taluk, Kondayampalli village produced by R.Krishnadevan - forged suspected - Reg. Ref: The District Backward Class Welfare Officers - ROC.182986/85 (DII dated 23.4.1987. In the reference cited, I have been asked to enquire and report, about the genuineness of the community certificate issued to one Th.R.Krishnadevan, S/o. Rangarajan of Kondayampalli village in Attur taluk. In this connection, I have made direct enquiry personally. Enquiry reveals that Thiru Krishnadevan is not a resident of Kondayampalli village and he is a resident of Maradi village, Thuraiyur taluk, Trichy District and now working as Clerk, Indian Overseas Bank, Uppiliapuram Branch, Thuraiyur taluk, Trichy District. At the time of enquiry, he has produced a original community certificate issued to him by Thiru R.Venkatesan the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. Copy of the certificate is enclosed. I have found that it is nothing but a forged document. The signature of the then Revenue Divisional Officer on the original community certificate produced by him was compared to the signatures of the then Revenue Divisional Officer on the other files in this office and also after perusing the seals etc., and it has been proved beyond doubt that it is a totally forged signature. I am of the view that the certificate purported to have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem on 6.1.1982 is a false certificate. I am of the view that the certificate purported to have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem on 6.1.1982 is a false certificate. I, therefore, request you to take further investigation in this matter and file a criminal prosecution against the individual for forgery and cheating the Government under Secs.420 and 471 of I.P.C. The result of the investigation may be communicated to this office at an early date. Enc: one S/d Jag. Mohan Singh Raju, Assistant Collector, Salem, /true copy/ Divl. Head Assistant Copy to the Collector, Salem for favour of information.” 11. From the above report, it is clear that the Assistant Collector has come to the conclusion that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one on the basis of his comparison of the signature of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem available in the other records and the community certificate of the petitioner. This report is also addressed only to the Superintendent of Police, Salem and the copy had been marked to the District Collector for information. The said Assistant Collector had requested the Superintendent of Police to take up further investigation in this regard and file a criminal prosecution against the petitioner for forgery and cheating. There is nothing on record to show that the copy of the report of the Assistant Collector had been forwarded to the bank or to the petitioner. Further, the Assistant Collector had requested the Superintendent of Police to communicate the result of the investigation. 12. Definitely, the respondent- bank had not received the copy of the report of the Assistant Collector dated 25.1.1988. This is clear from the letter of the respondent- bank to the Collector of Salem dated 7.6.1988 wherein the respondent- bank had requested the Collector to investigate the caste status of the petitioner thoroughly and forward his final caste verification report. In the said letter dated 7.6.1988, the respondent- bank also referred to the earlier letters and informed the ‘Collector’ that the respondent- bank has not received even an interim reply from their office. A criminal complaint has been laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thammampatti and the same was registered as Crime No.54 of 1988 on the file of Thammampatti Police Station against the petitioner herein for the offences under Secs.420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A criminal complaint has been laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thammampatti and the same was registered as Crime No.54 of 1988 on the file of Thammampatti Police Station against the petitioner herein for the offences under Secs.420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to show that the Superintendent of Police had communicated the report on the result of his investigation. 13. On 10.12.1988, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner, which is as follows: 10.12.1988 Industrial Relations Dept Ref-No.IRD/184/ Shri R.Krishnadevan Roll No.31754 - Sh/GK Indian Overseas Bank Uppiliapuram Branch. Dear Sir, Staff: Discipline We refer to the application form dated 26.7.1982 duly signed and submitted by you at the time of joining the bank, wherein you declared yourself as belonging to Kattunayakan community recognized as ST and in support of your claim, you had produced a caste certificate dated 19.7.1982 said to a have been issued by Tahsildar, Athur, Salem District. On taking up the matter with the appropriate authorities for verification, we are advised that you do not belong to the ‘Kattunayakan Community’ and also that the certificate is a forged one. As such, we observe that you have with some ulterior motive misrepresented vital information relating to your correct caste status and sought gainful employment under a reserved category quota, for which, you are otherwise not entitled by producing a forged caste certificate. In this connection, we draw your attention to the declaration made by you in the application form submitted at the time of joining the bank as under. "I hereby declare that all the Information, and particulars given by me in this form are true and correct. I also note that if any of the above statements are incorrect or false or if any material information or particular has been suppressed or omitted therefrom, I am liable to be disqualified and if appointed, my appointment will be liable to be terminated without notice or compensation in lieu of notice." In the above circumstances, you are instructed to submit your explanation within 15 days of receipt of this letter showing cause as to why your services should not be terminated for having produced a forged caste certificate in support of material information. Please note that if no reply is received on or before 26.12.1988, it shall be construed that you have no valid explanation to offer and the matter shall be proceeded further as deemed fit. Yours faithfully (C.S.Ramarao) Asst. Gen.Manager" 14. In the second paragraph of the show cause notice, the respondent- bank had stated that they were advised that the petitioner does not belong to Kattunaicken community and also the community certificate is a forged one. The source of advice had not been mentioned. Further, there is no mention about the report of the Collector or any other Enquiry Officer. However, the explanation has been called for from the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated for having produced the forged caste certificate. 15. The petitioner also submitted his reply. In his reply, he has stated that he did not receive any copy of the enquiry report from the appropriate authority. He further stated that the community certificate under dispute had not been cancelled so far by the appropriate authority. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem as well as the Tahsildar, Attur had given the community certificate and the same had not been examined by the authorities with regard to the genuineness. Hence, the action taken by the respondent- bank is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without any basis. After considering this explanation of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. 16. In the impugned order, it is stated as follows: "We bring to your notice that at the time of joining the bank, you have stated in your application form in Column ‘4’ that your place of birth as ‘Maradi’ and place of domicile as ‘Trichy District’. In such case, the proper authority to issue the community certificate is either Tahsildar of Thuraiyur or R.D.O., Tiruchirapalli. The authorities who issued the community certificates to you have no control or jurisdiction over the place of your domicile and they are not competent to issue caste certificate to you". 17. The respondents have proceeded on the basis that the place of birth and the place of domicile are mentioned respectively as ‘Maradi’ and ‘Trichy District’. Hence, the competent authority to issue the community certificate is either the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur or the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichirapalli. The community certificate produced by the authorities has no jurisdiction to issue the same. 18. The respondents have proceeded on the basis that the place of birth and the place of domicile are mentioned respectively as ‘Maradi’ and ‘Trichy District’. Hence, the competent authority to issue the community certificate is either the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur or the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichirapalli. The community certificate produced by the authorities has no jurisdiction to issue the same. 18. So far as this stand of the respondent- bank is concerned, this has nothing to do with the enquiry. The petitioner, along with the application, had submitted his community certificate. The declaration with regard to the place of birth and the place of domicile were given by the petitioner in the application itself as admitted by the respondent- bank. When initially the authorities have accepted the community certificate and provided employment to the petitioner, it is not open to them at this stage to raise such an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the authorities to issue the community certificate. Moreover, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to explain the same, since this was not mentioned in the show cause notice. Hence, this cannot be a ground to terminate the service of the petitioner. 19. However, the impugned order further refers to the report of the Assistant Collector of Salem dated 25.1.1988 with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner and his finding that the same is forged one and on the basis of the said report, the explanation of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory. 20. Apart from this, even in the counter affidavit of the respondent- bank, in paragraph 6, it is stated as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that we have taken action on the basis of the reports forwarded by the Assistant Collector, Salem". When, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he has explicitly mentioned that he has not been provided with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer or the proceedings of the final authority, it is for the respondents to furnish the copy of the same before ever the final orders are passed. Even otherwise, when the respondent- bank had initiated the disciplinary action on the basis of the report of the Assistant Collector, it is for the respondents to furnish the copy of such a report along with the show cause notice. 21. Even otherwise, when the respondent- bank had initiated the disciplinary action on the basis of the report of the Assistant Collector, it is for the respondents to furnish the copy of such a report along with the show cause notice. 21. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Ilamaran v. Government of India, represented by the Chief Engineer, AIR and Television, Southern Zone, Madras, 1996 Writ L.R. 482 as follows: "Whenever the question arises as to whether a person belongs to a particular community recognised as the Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, decision, has to be taken by the Collector of the District, after holding due enquiry and in such case, he may himself hold an enquiry or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. In the event the Collector adopts the latter course, he has to make available a copy of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the concerned person and give him an opportunity to file his objections and adduce evidence, if any and then decide the matter after hearing the aggrieved person, in the instant case, the petitioner. A copy of the report made by the Revenue Divisional Officer should be furnished to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner should 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 the 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". 22. In another decision of the Division Bench, this Court, consisting of K.A. Swamy, C.J. and D.Raju, J (as he then was), in V.Kannagi v. Reserve Bank of India and another, W.A.No.241 of 1996 held that in similar cases, the Collector himself should hold an enquiry. In the said decision, the Division Bench has held as follows: "The Collector has to hold an enquiry either by-himself or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. In the said decision, the Division Bench has held as follows: "The Collector has to hold an enquiry either by-himself or direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. On the submission of the report by the Revenue Divisional Officer, a copy of the same has to be furnished to the party concerned and he should be given an opportunity to file objections and to adduce further evidence, if any, and decide the matter after hearing the concerned person or party. In the event, after following the procedure, the Collector comes to the conclusion that the community certificate obtained by the person concerned does not belong to the community he claimed he has to intimate the same to the Appointing Authority, who has to proceed in the matter as per the decision of the Collector on the question of the community of the person." 23. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in another decision, namely, R.K.Sekar v. The District Collector, Chennai M.G.R. District, 1996 W.L.R. 484, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of K.A. Swamy, C.J. and Kanagaraj, J. held as follows: "The question as to whether the petitioner belongs to the said community arose on the reference made by the Central Excise Department to the first respondent as the petitioner has obtained employment in the Central Excise Department on the production of a community certificate issued by the Tahsildar. In such cases, after the Revenue Divisional Officer submits a report after enquiry to the Collector, who is the authority to decide, is required to furnish a copy of the report and copies of the documents which would be relied upon by the Collector in deciding the question whether a person belongs to a particular community or not". 24. From the above well laid principles, it is clear that the appropriate authority has to furnish the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner before ever any final order is being passed. In this case, as stated already, there is nothing on record to show that the report of the Assistant Collector, Salem had been received by the respondent- bank also. Equally, there is no material available on record to establish that the copy of the report of the Assistant Collector was furnished to the petitioner at least by the respondent- bank. In this case, as stated already, there is nothing on record to show that the report of the Assistant Collector, Salem had been received by the respondent- bank also. Equally, there is no material available on record to establish that the copy of the report of the Assistant Collector was furnished to the petitioner at least by the respondent- bank. In the show cause notice, there is no mention about such a report. Only in the impugned order terminating the service, a reference has been made to the report of the Assistant Collector, Salem. 25. The report of the Assistant Collector, Salem had already been extracted. A perusal of the same would clearly reveal that it is only a preliminary report arrived at by the concerned officer on comparison of the signatures of the authorities, who issued the community certificate. That is the reason why he forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police with a request to take up the further investigation in this regard and file a criminal prosecution. What is the further investigation done by the Superintendent of Police is not clear. There is no final order by either the Assistant Collector or the Collector declaring that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged one and the same cannot be entertained. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on the basis of the interim report of the Assistant Collector, Salem, which report was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Salem for further investigation and hence, the disciplinary action taken by the respondent- bank cannot be said to be on the basis of any final report and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated, as the same is without any basis. 26. It is made clear that the respondent- bank is at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner as and when the final report of the Assistant Collector or the Collector is received or after receipt of the report of the Superintendent of Police after his further investigation requested by the Assistant Collector of Salem. 27. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.