Judgment :- Ghulam Mohammed This writ petition is filed against the order dated 24-02-1999 passed in OA No.1104 of 1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. 2. The applicant in the OA is the petitioner herein. He filed the OA seeking to set aside the order dated 7-10-1994 passed by the 1st respondent; the order dated 31-10-1995 passed by the 2nd respondent in review and the order dated 24-8-1996 passed by the 3rd respondent in revision, with a consequential direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay, seniority etc. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) Community ‘Konda Kapu’ and he was selected to the post of trainee skilled artisan by Proceedings No.LGD/P.561/E2, dated 17-7-1989 passed by the District Electrical Engineer, Workshops, Lallaguda, Secunderabad, against 25 % direct recruitment quota under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe crash programme and was posted to work under the control of Superintendent, Electrical Repairs, South Central Railways, Lallaguda, as Diesel Fitter. It is stated that in proof of his community, the petitioner submitted, among other things, a copy of transfer certificate dated 17-8-1983 issued by the Principal, Technical High School attached to Government Polytechnic, Vijayawada, as proof that he belongs to ‘Konda Kapu’ Community as the course which he has undergone at Technical High School is equivalent to matriculation. It is his case that, as per the rules, in vogue, matriculation or school leaving certificate or birth certificate is sufficient proof to claim social status as scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and this was clarified by the Railway Board in proceedings Lr.No.E.50/CMI/7/3, dated 18-6-1953 and further reiterated by the Railway Board in proceedings Lr. No.90/E/SCT-I/31/1, dated 25-5-1990 and the same was circulated under Lr.No.P(RES)171/Polic/VI, dated 21-06-1990 by the Chief Personnel Officer, SC Railway, Secunderabad. It is stated that the same was brought to the notice of District Electrical Engineer, Work Shops, SC Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad, by the petitioner by way of letter dated 1-6-1990. However, as per the orders of his superior officers, the petitioner approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada, which was the place of his residence at that time, to issue him caste certificate, but the MRO, Vijayawada, him to approach MRO, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, as it being the native place of the petitioner’s fore-fathers. However, as per the orders of his superior officers, the petitioner approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada, which was the place of his residence at that time, to issue him caste certificate, but the MRO, Vijayawada, him to approach MRO, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, as it being the native place of the petitioner’s fore-fathers. It is further stated that the petitioner approached MRO, Veeravasaram, to conduct enquiry in Perikipalem and issue him the caste certificate, but the MRO, Veeravasaram, refused to issue certificate on the ground that there are no ‘Konda Kapus’ in Perikipalem. 4. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, by proceedings dated 25-1-1990, the District Electrical Engineer directed the petitioner to submit his caste certificate in the proforma prescribed within 15 days, otherwise to face appropriate proceedings, and in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply stating that he need not produce the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma as he has already submitted his transfer certificate in proof of his caste and that it is sufficient proof as per the Railway Board Lr.No.90/E/SCT/I/31/1, dated 25-5-1990. That without examining his reply, the District Electrical Engineer (Workshops) Lallaguda, SC Railway, issued charge memo dated 21-11-1990 framing two charges, the first charge as to non-furnishing the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma and the second charge as to non-compliance of the office letters requiring him to produce the caste certificate. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 3-12-1990 along with i. school certificate dated 13-6-1979, ii. Technical school TC dated 17-8-1983, iii. Diploma marks memo dated 4-12-1987, iv. Technical high school certificate dated 8-7-1985, v. income certificate dated 7-7-1980, vi. his father’s SSLC certificate dated 7-12-1950 and service particulars dated 4-10-1955, vii. his two brothers’ TCs dated 21-9-1978 and 27-6-1980, viii. caste certificate dated 14-10-1985 and xi. father’s service certificate dated 16-4-1991. It is further stated that in spite of submission of all these certificates, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the 1st respondent passed orders of dismissal in Memo.No.LGD/ELP/89451/27/90, dated 7-10-1994 and against the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 17-11-1994 and the same was also rejected in Memo.No.LGD/P.227/Appeal/Review, dated 31-10-1995. It is stated that the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred revision before the 3rd respondent and that was also rejected by order No.P.87/LGD/GSBR/2144, dated 24-8-1996. Aggrieved by the these orders, the petitioner filed the above OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner failed to submit the caste certificate in prescribed porforma though he was given sufficient opportunity and reminders and he did not move in the matter. It was also stated that the petitioner was appointed provisionally without insisting for production of caste certificate to avoid hardship to the petitioner and he was required to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma in the due course. It was further stated that the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by his letter No.RC/1491/93/TRI/VC, dated 2-8-1994, has informed the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to ST Community and based on this and also the report of the enquiry officer, an opinion was formed that the petitioner does not belong to ST Community and, therefore, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions, by the impugned order dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 6. Sri DV Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the enquiry report of Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, AP, Hyderabad, was neither supplied to the petitioner nor was he a party to the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare. Learned counsel also submitted that mere non production of the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma, the authorities cannot draw an adverse inference to come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ Community without there being proper enquiry by the competent authority. It also submitted that the roving enquiries made by the respondents was not for the purpose of determining the caste of the petitioner, but for the purpose of failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma. Learned counsel also contended that submission of caste certificate in the prescribed proforma as per the Railway Board in proceedings Lr. No.90/E/SCT-I/31/1, dated 25-5-1990 has no application to the case of the petitioner as he was appointed in the year 1989 and his case is governed by the proceedings issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in OM No.42/21/49-NGS, dated 28-1-1952. No.90/E/SCT-I/31/1, dated 25-5-1990 has no application to the case of the petitioner as he was appointed in the year 1989 and his case is governed by the proceedings issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in OM No.42/21/49-NGS, dated 28-1-1952. The decisions in R. Kandasamy Vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust (1997) 7 SCC 505 Kum. S. Sasidevi Vs. Commisioner, TW 2002 (1) DT (AP) 155, State Of Bihar Vs. Sumit Anand (2005) 12 SCC 248 & D. Sudershan Vs. Govt. Of Ap 2002 (3) ALD 678 are relied on by the learned counsel 7. Sri Gowrishanker Sanghi, learned standing counsel for Railways, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent-authorities had given order of provisional appointment to the petitioner subject to production of caste certificate in the prescribed proforma and as the petitioner failed to produce the caste certificate, disciplinary proceedings ensued and during the disciplinary proceedings the petitioners failed to establish that he belonged to ST Community, and, therefore, he was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service which was confirmed by the appellate, revisional authorities and the Tribunal and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The decision in the Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India Vs. Mg Dahir 2008 (5) Supreme 400 is relied on by the learned standing counsel. 8. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Schedule Tribe (ST) Community ‘Konda Kapu’ and in proof of his community, the petitioner submitted i. school certificate dated 13-6-1979, ii. Technical school TC dated 17-8-1983, iii. Diploma marks memo dated 4-12-1987, iv. Technical high school certificate dated 8-7-1985, v. income certificate dated 7-7-1980, vi. his father’s SSLC certificate dated 7-12-1950 and service particulars dated 4-10-1955, vii. his two brothers’ TCs dated 21-9-1978 and 27-6-1980, viii. caste certificate dated 14-10-1985 and xi. father’s service certificate dated 16-4-1991. It is his specific case that his community is mentioned in the transfer certificate dated 17-8-1983 issued by the Principal, Technical High School attached to Government Polytechnic, Vijayawada, and it is sufficient proof that he belongs to ‘Konda Kapu’ Community as the course which he has undergone at Technical High School is equivalent to matriculation. father’s service certificate dated 16-4-1991. It is his specific case that his community is mentioned in the transfer certificate dated 17-8-1983 issued by the Principal, Technical High School attached to Government Polytechnic, Vijayawada, and it is sufficient proof that he belongs to ‘Konda Kapu’ Community as the course which he has undergone at Technical High School is equivalent to matriculation. It is his case that as per the Railway Boards Lr.No.E50/CMI/7/3, dated 18-6-1953, matriculation or school leaving certificate or birth certificate is sufficient proof to claim social status as schedule caste/schedule tribe and the Railway Board in proceedings dated 24-4-1990 is inapplicable to his case. 9. In Sumit Anand’s case at para of the decision the Apex Court held thus: “3. Having completed his education, Sumit Anand again applied for the certificate in question, which was denied by the District Magistrate as he was of the opinion that the respondent did not belong to ST. The respondent thereafter filed another writ petition being CWJC No.439 of 2001, which was accepted by the single Judge holding that the respondent as entitled to grant of certificate in view of the fact that his father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle all belonged to the “Gond” community and had been issued certificates to that effect.” 10. The petitioner was provisionally appointed on 17-7-1989 and as on that date matriculation or school leaving certificate or birth certificate giving the caste/community of the candidate and the place of his residence was accepted by the authorities as sufficient proof of social status. However, the subsequent Railway Board in proceedings dated 24-4-1990 required that the appointee should produce caste/tribe certificate issued by the authorities mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted the documents as per Railway Board proceedings dated 18-6-1953 and at that time furnishing the matriculation or school leaving certificate or birth certificate was sufficient proof to claim social status as schedule caste/schedule tribe. That apart, admittedly, the respondents have not supplied the copy of the report submitted by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, which is one of the base for passing the dismissal order. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and he was not given an opportunity to put forth his case that he belongs to ST community. That apart, admittedly, the respondents have not supplied the copy of the report submitted by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, which is one of the base for passing the dismissal order. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and he was not given an opportunity to put forth his case that he belongs to ST community. In GO Ms.No.178 SW (J2), department, dated 6-8-1988 orders were issued by the Government authorizing all members of Legislative Assembly, Members of Parliament, Chairman of Zilla Praja Prishads, Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads and all gazetted officers of the State Government to issue caste/community certificate to schedule castes, schedule tribes and backward classes for the purpose of appointment to services, admission into educational institutions, sanction of scholarships and other concessions to which these communities are eligible, but as there were no specific orders as to the authorities competent to cancel the caste certificates found to be false, the Government in GO Ms. No.282, Social Welfare (J2) Department, dated 19-12-1988 issued orders authorizing the Additional District Magistrate of the Revenue District etc. to cancel the false scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward class certificates issued by non-officials and officials, duly following the procedure prescribed and giving an opportunity to the individual concerned to be heard. 11. In R. Kandasamy’s case the Apex Court at para 6 held thus: “6. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a schedule tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11-11-1989 is a good and valid community certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.” 12. To the same effect is the decision of Division Bench of this Court in D. SUDERSHAN’s case, para 20 of the judgment reads thus: “As admittedly, no enquiry was done by the Scrutiny Committee as envisaged under the said rules, the order of the District Collector dated 6-1-2000 cannot be sustained. To the same effect is the decision of Division Bench of this Court in D. SUDERSHAN’s case, para 20 of the judgment reads thus: “As admittedly, no enquiry was done by the Scrutiny Committee as envisaged under the said rules, the order of the District Collector dated 6-1-2000 cannot be sustained. Section 21 of the Act provides that unless a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of the Act is cancelled in accordance with the provision of the Act, the community certificate issued by such authority shall be valid and the same shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act.” 13. In KUM. S. SASIDEVI’s case a Division Bench of this Court dealing with a similar case observed that under the rules framed in GO Ms.No.58, dated 12-5-1997, Scrutiny Committee is the competent authority to conduct enquiry regarding the genuineness of certificates and cancel certificates obtained by fraudulent methods and Commissioner of Tribal Welfare is one the members of the Committee and he alone is not the competent authority to decide the issue. 14. The proposition laid down by the Apex Court in MG DAHIR’s case is settled proposition of law that a person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment for the post meant for a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, doest not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the Court. 15. In the instant case, it is not that the petitioner has not produced any document in proof of his community. The petitioner filed i. school certificate dated 13-6-1979, ii. Technical school TC dated 17-8-1983, iii. Diploma marks memo dated 4-12-1987, iv. Technical high school certificate dated 8-7-1985, v. income certificate dated 7-7-1980, vi. his father’s SSLC certificate dated 7-12-1950 and service particulars dated 4-10-1955, vii. his two brothers’ TCs dated 21-9-1978 and 27-6-1980, viii. caste certificate dated 14-10-1985 and xi. father’s service certificate dated 16-4-1991 and in all these documents the petitioner is shown as belonging to ST community and documents produced contained all the required information to establish his identity as scheduled tribe. his two brothers’ TCs dated 21-9-1978 and 27-6-1980, viii. caste certificate dated 14-10-1985 and xi. father’s service certificate dated 16-4-1991 and in all these documents the petitioner is shown as belonging to ST community and documents produced contained all the required information to establish his identity as scheduled tribe. It is settled law that the community certificates issued by the competent authorities confer valuable rights/benefits on the person to whom they have been issued and, therefore, they cannot be interfered with except in accordance with law. In the instant case there is no enquiry conducted by the competent authority and the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare was behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard in the matter. 16. The Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 20 (1) of Act 16 of 1993, framed rules issued in GO Ms.No.58, dated 12-5-1997 called as “the AP Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997”. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with the constitution of the Scrutiny and Review Committees. The Scrutiny Committee at District level shall deal with enquiry, following the due process of law, to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the community certificates. Section 21 of Act 16 of 1993 mandates that a community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue, before the commencement of the said Act, would be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provision of the said Act, and it follows that unless the case of the petitioner is examined with reference to the documents submitted by him and opportunity afforded to him in the matter, branding him as a person belonging to non-tribal is without basis. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned dated 24-02-1999 passed in OA No.1104 of 1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad is set aside. No order as to costs.