JUDGMENT : Per P.V.Hardas, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. . This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee dt.25.4.2006 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 2.8.2006 issued by respondent no.5, which has been issued in pursuance to the tribe claim of the petitioner being invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. 2. The claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. In support of the claim of the petitioner, in respect of his tribe, the petitioner had submitted a caste certificate issued to him by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, dated 29.2.1993 in which the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. The petitioner had also submitted a certificate granted to him by the Head Master of the Central Primary School, denoting the caste as Koli. Another certificate came to be submitted by the petitioner issued by Parishad Prashala, Ranisavargaon, in which the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. A xerox copy of the school leaving certificate of the petitioner issued by Parishad Prashala, Ranisavargaon, taluka Gangakhed,dist. Parbhani, also records caste of the petitioner as Koli. The petitioner had submitted caste certificate of his relative by name Santosh Uttamrao Suryawad which was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Hingoli, in which the caste of the relative of the petitioner was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. The petitioner had submitted xerox copy of the caste certificate of the cousin of the petitioner in which the caste was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. Another certificate submitted by the petitioner in respect of the relative of the petitioner also showed the caste as Mahadeo Koli. 3. Thus, the perusal of the aforesaid certificates would show that the certificate which is enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee at Sr.No.2 shows that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. Similarly, the certificate enlisted at Sr.No.3 also showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. 3. Thus, the perusal of the aforesaid certificates would show that the certificate which is enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee at Sr.No.2 shows that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. Similarly, the certificate enlisted at Sr.No.3 also showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. Certificate enlisted at Sr.No.4 also showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. The other certificates pertain to the relatives of the petitioner whose caste claim obviously had not been considered by the respondent Scrutiny Committee and there was no determination of the caste claim of those relatives. The report of the Vigilence Cell, which was submitted before the Committee on 26.3.1999 expressed that the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, dated 29.2.1993, had not been issued from the office of the Executive Magistrate. 4. Be that as it may, the respondent Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner on three grounds. The aforesaid grounds are (1) the applicant ( petitioner) has not produced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim, (2) the applicant (petitioner) has utterly failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage towards Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe and, (3) the applicant (petitioner) had not produced any valuable proof or sufficient documentary evidence on record of the period prior to 1950 in support of his claim. 5. Mr. A.S.Golegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged before us that the report of the Vigilance Cell, which was submitted before the Scrutiny Committee on 26.3.1999, had not been served on the petitioner. The second ground which was urged was that the Committee had closed the case for orders in the year 1999 and the order came to be delievered in the year 2006. . Mr. M.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Scrutiny Committee has placed the record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee for our perusal and, on the basis of the record and proceedings, has submitted before us that the interview sheet, which is signed by the petitioner dt.15.9.2000, clearly showed an endorsement alleged to have been made by the petitioner that he would submit his reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell within 15 days. Mr. Mr. M.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel has further urged before us that the report of the Vigilance Cell has been forwarded to the petitioner inviting his comments along with the show cause notice dt.7.4.1999. The aforesaid show cause notice had been sent to the petitioner under Registered Post with Acknowledgment due. The record, however, does not disclose any acknowledgment. However, the address upon which aforesaid notice had been served is the same address on which subsequent communications have been issued to the petitioner. The respondent Scrutiny Committee, in the judgment, has recorded that the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee on various dates and the petitioner had, in fact, appeared and was interviewed on 15.9.2000. The petitioner had been heard fully on 15.9.2000. The impugned order came to be passed in the year 2006. The judgment of the Scrutiny Committee also shows that petitioner was called for interview on 28.3.2006 but the petitioner did not appear. 6. It appears that originally the claim had been placed before the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik and it was the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik which had heard the petitioner. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner came to be transferred to Aurangabad Scrutiny Committee. On the matter being transferred to the Aurangabad Scrutiny Committee, according to the Committee, it had issued notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear before it for hearing on 28.3.2006. The notice is issued to the petitioner for appearing before the Committee on 28.3.2006 and the said notice is dated 20.3.2006. It is also sent by Registered Post but the record and proceedings does not disclose any acknowledgement evidencing receipt of the said notice by the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, it emerges from the perusal of the record and proceedings and the judgment of the respondent Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner was not heard by the Aurangabad Scrutiny Committee before claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated. The petitioner had been heard fully by the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik and there is nothing in the record and proceedings to indicate that before the impugned judgment came to be passed, invaliding the tribe claim of the petitioner, the petitioner had been heard by the Aurangabad Committee. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, it was incumbent for the Aurangabad Committee to have heard the petitioner before adverse order is passed against the petitioner. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, it was incumbent for the Aurangabad Committee to have heard the petitioner before adverse order is passed against the petitioner. 8. In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and remit the matter back to the Aurangabad Scrutiny Committee for hearing the petitioner and passing further orders in accordance with law. We make it clear that the petitioner, if he so desires, may submit reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner shall not ask for any adjournment for submitting the reply. We further direct the petitioner to appear before the Aurangabad Scrutiny Committee on 17th Dec.,2007, on which date the petitioner shall submit his reply to the Vigilance Cell report, if the petitioner so desires. The Scrutiny Committee at Aurangabad shall, as per its convenience, hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The matter is being remitted back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee just to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has questioned the termination order issued to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation where the petitioner was employed as a Driver. The petitioner has adequate remedies available in law for questioning the order of termination and in the light of that,therefore, according to us, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to quash and set aside the termination order. The termination of the petitioner had been effected purely because of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to resort to the remedies as are available to him in law for questioning the termination order. 10. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs.