Judgment :- Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Trichy dated 21-6-89 cancelling the community certificate dated 25-6-77 issued by Tahsildar, Thuraiyur holding that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said order and consequently restrain the third respondent-Syndicate Bank from taking any further proceedings pursuant to the said order of the first respondent dated 21-6-89. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he belongs to Konda reddis community which is one of the communities listed in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President of India. He was selected as a clerk by the third respondent Bank under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes on an application made by him some time in 1983. He was posted to Gudalur Branch, the Nilgiris District and he joined the said branch on 12-11-84. He was confirmed as Clerk with effect from 12-5-85 by their proceedings dated 1-6-85. At the time of his application and subsequently he had produced the community certificate issued to him by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur dated 25-6-77. The said certificate was issued after due enquiry and after following the procedure. While so, the third respondent referred his certificate to the first respondent for verification, who in turn, delegated the same to the second respondent. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Tiruchy District, issued a notice to the petitioner on 5-5-88, asking him to appear for an enquiry on 6-6-88 at 11 a.m. before him. He submitted his written explanation stating that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community of Konda reddis. He also prayed for a personal hearing to examine his witnesses. Without personal hearing by the second respondent as demanded, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18-5-89 asking him to show cause why his community certificate should not be cancelled. To this he sent a letter to the first respondent requesting to supply a copy of the alleged report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and other documents referred to therein. Without acceding to his request, the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 21-6-89, cancelled his community certificate. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The first respondent-District Collector has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. Without acceding to his request, the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 21-6-89, cancelled his community certificate. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The first respondent-District Collector has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to the request made by the Syndicate Bank-third respondent herein, the first respondent instructed the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri to conduct a discreet enquiry at the parental village i.e., Eragudi village, Thuraiyur taluk. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted a discreet enquiry in the village itself, enquired the Village Administrative Officer and other villagers and submitted a report to the Collector stating that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddi (Scheduled Tribe), but belongs to Hindu Reddiar (F.C). Based on his report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent to appear on 30-5-89. Instead of appearing on the said date, he sent a letter on 29-5-89 requesting to supply copies of certain enquiry records of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri. Since the first respondent has passed the impugned order, after considering the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the statements of villagers obtained by him, as well as the conclusion arrived at therein, there is no ground for interference in this writ petition. 4. The third respondent employer has also filed a counter affidavit and the same is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 6. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21-6-89, cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner dated 25-6-77 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur is sustainable or not? 7. I have already referred to the case of the petitioner, particularly with regard to his appointment in the third respondent bank and the community certificate dated 25-6-77 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. Pursuant to the request of the third respondent-bank namely the employer of the petitioner, the first respondent-District Collector directed the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri to conduct an enquiry as to genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner and submit a report. Pursuant to the request of the third respondent-bank namely the employer of the petitioner, the first respondent-District Collector directed the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri to conduct an enquiry as to genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner and submit a report. There is no dispute that at the relevant time, the first respondent was the competent authority to decide the genuineness of the community certificate pertaining to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. The first respondent was also right in calling for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notice issued by the second respondent, he appeared and submitted his written explanation highlighting that he belongs to Konda Reddy (S.T) and also prayed for a personal hearing before arriving at any conclusion. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given the opportunity of personal hearing by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 8. It is seen from the impugned order of the first respondent that based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to submit his objection, if any. It is also not disputed that the petitioner instead of appearing before the Collector on 30-5-89, as directed, has submitted a letter with a request to supply copy of the report including the enquiry details of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri. In the very same letter, he also prayed for supply of copies of other documents referred in Memo No.Na.Ka.M2/32277/88 dated 18-5-89. The same was referred to in para 3 of the impugned proceedings. It is clear that by a registered letter dated 30-5-89, the petitioner has requested the first respondent to furnish the copies of certain documents mentioned therein. Instead of complying with the said request, the first respondent, after observing that there is no need to supply copies of those documents as claimed and on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled his community certificate dated 25-6-77 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. Instead of complying with the said request, the first respondent, after observing that there is no need to supply copies of those documents as claimed and on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled his community certificate dated 25-6-77 issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. I have already referred to the stand taken by the District Collector in his counter affidavit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri-2nd respondent had conducted a discreet enquiry in the village itself by enquiring the Village Administrative Officer and other villagers and after obtaining statements from various persons, he submitted his report to the Collector-first respondent. The first respondent has also fairly stated in the impugned order that relying on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he cancelled the community certificate of the petitioner. In such a circumstance, having relied on and accepted the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent ought to have furnished copies of the report and other details to the petitioner to enable him to put-forth his defence effectively. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very much relied on the earliest judgment of this Court in Selvaraju, D. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, etc. (1991 W.L.R. 68). The following conclusion of Mishra, J. is relevant: (para 4) 4. While it cannot be suggested that no preliminary enquiry could be held to find out the truth or otherwise before any notice was issued to the petitioners and such enquiry report can be made the basis of a proceeding for such appropriate action as the situation may warrant, it is well-settled that no reliance can be placed upon any preliminary enquiry report without serving a copy thereof upon the affected person and without affording opportunity to the affected person to demonstrate that the report which is not based upon the truth or otherwise, is not reliable. No rule of universal application can be stated to apply to a situation like this, but this much is certain that on a report which is said to be based upon a statement of certain individuals, who may be available for testifying one way or the other, unless veracity of their statements is tested by some methods in the presence of the persons affected, no reliance can be placed. In the instant case, when the Revenue Divisional Officer held enquiry and obtained statements of the villagers and prepared the report based on their statements, he ought to have forwarded the statements of such individuals, who testified before him that the petitioners did not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, to the petitioners. In their respective explanations, the petitioners objected to the report based on the statements of villagers stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer had obtained signatures of several villagers on papers without disclosing the contents of what they were. The Collector in this background could not place explicit reliance upon the statements of the villagers or accept the Revenue Divisional Officer's report without testing the veracity thereof." 9. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in C. Baskaran v. The District Collector, Trichy (1997 Writ L.R. 33) wherein Their Lordships have held that when the order itself is based on the discreet enquiry, the records of which were not made available to the petitioner, his conclusion is based upon the result of the discreet enquiry, copies of which had not been furnished to the petitioner, thus, there is breach of principles of natural justice. It is also relevant to refer a decision of M. Karpagavinayagam, J. in Ravichandran, R. v. The Collector of Salem and others (1999 Writ L.R. 187) wherein the learned judge has held that it is incumbent on the part of the Collector to send a copy of the Revenue Divisional Officer's report and other documents proposed to be relied on by the Collector along with the show cause notice. He further held that that alone would enable the petitioner to adduce evidence contra to the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Divisional Officer and to dislodge the said report, thereby establishing the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He further held that non-furnishing of the relevant document and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would disable the person concerned to prove his claim that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe to the satisfaction of the competent authority. 10. He further held that non-furnishing of the relevant document and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would disable the person concerned to prove his claim that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe to the satisfaction of the competent authority. 10. All the above decisions would clearly show that when the enquiring authority namely District Collector, though he is competent, delegated his power of enquiry with his subordinate Officers like Revenue Divisional Officer, and accordingly if the Revenue Divisional Officer carried out the instructions and submitted a report, it is incumbent on the part of the enquiring officer viz., the District Collector to furnish copies of the Revenue Divisional Officer's report and other documents relied on by him along with the show cause notice to enable the person concerned-delinquent to put-forth his defence effectively. Such recourse has not been followed in this case. On this ground, namely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be quashed. 11. It is relevant to note that as observed by the Supreme Court in R. Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, reported in Judgments Today 1997 (7) S.C. 660, the community certificate issued to a S.T. candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11-11-89 is a good and valid community certificate for all purpose so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. In the light of the said conclusion, if the concerned authority takes any decision regarding the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11-11-89, he is expected to provide adequate and ample opportunity to the aggrieved person. 12. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21-6-89 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.