JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge dated 22.04.1999 made in W.P.No.15738 of 1990 in and by which, the learned Judge quashed the order of the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli dated 13.08.1990 which was passed with reference to the Community Certificate of the petitioner/appellant herein.
2. According to the petitioner-appellant, he belongs to Sholaga (S.T.) Community which is recognised as one of Scheduled Tribe under Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. Though he secured a certificate dated 30.10.1981 from the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Karur to the effect that he belongs to Sholaga Community, after his appointment as Senior Clerk in Southern Railway, the said certificate sought to be verified. It is seen from the order of the first respondent District Collector, Trichy dated 13.08.1990, a discreet enquiry was conducted by the Sub Collector with reference to the claim of the petitioner and after getting information and materials, the petitioner was asked to appear before him for an enquiry. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner appeared before the District Collector on 06.08.1990 and made a statement. It is further seen from the said order that except the Community Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner has not furnished any other materials to substantiate his claim that he belongs to Sholaga Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is further seen that in the absence of any other materials and based on the report of the Sub Collector who conducted discreet enquiry with reference to the claim of the petitioner, by the said order dated 13.08.1990, the District Collector cancelled the certificate obtained from the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Karur.
3. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition in W.P.No.15738 of 1990. The learned single Judge after holding that inasmuch as the enquiry was a discreet enquiry and petitioner is not entitled to copy of the said proceedings, confirmed the order of the District Collector and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. We have already referred to the order of the District Collector dated 13.08.1990. To ascertain the genuineness of the Community Certificate secured by the petitioner, he was asked to appear on various dates and finally, he appeared on 06.08.1990 and made a statement. It is true that apart from the certificate of the Deputy Tahsildar, Headquarters, Karur, the petitioner has not produced any other material to substantiate his claim. However, a perusal of the order shows that before passing the order on 13.08.1990, on the direction of the District Collector, Sub Collector conducted discreet enquiry with reference to the Community Certificate of the petitioner and submitted a report. It is further seen that the District Collector relying on the report of the Sub Collector, cancelled the Community Certificate. Though the District Collector and his subordinate officers are entitled to conduct enquiry and ascertain whether the Community Certificate in question is genuine and person belongs to the said Community, it is but proper that person concerned must be given an opportunity with reference to the outcome of the enquiry. Though petitioner was asked to appear for personal enquiry and in fact appeared on 06.08.1990, admittedly, copy/materials of the discreet enquiry were not furnished to the petitioner.
6. There is no dispute that this Court has held in more than one occasion that the authorities are not permitted to conduct discreet enquiry, without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Even otherwise, if any enquiry is conducted, copy of those proceedings/materials are to be supplied to the person concerned in order to make further representation or meet the said conclusion arrived in the said enquiry. The said course has not been followed by the District Collector while passing the order on 13.08.1990. This vital aspect has not been considered by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
7. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development wherein Their Lordships have held in a matter like this, on receipt of a report from Officer concerned/Vigilance Officer and found that the certificate relating to social status is not genuine and doubtful, it is incumbent on the part of the Officer concerned to issue show cause notice, supplying copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer/Enquiry Officer to the person concerned before passing any order with reference to his community status.
8. As discussed above, the order of the District Collector dated 13.08.1990 does not disclose that the petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report or other materials before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed.
9. There is no dispute that after the decision of the Supreme Court in (cited supra), the Government of Tamil Nadu have constituted two Committees one at the District level and another at the State level. In such circumstance, though we set aside the order of the District Collector dated 13.08.1990, the certificate secured by the petitioner has to be verified by the District Committee referred above and it is for the petitioner to prove and substantiate that his claim is genuine and acceptable. Accordingly, we permit the District Level Committee to go into the genuineness of the Community Certificate dated 30.10.1981 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Karur and pass an order after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner. In the proposed enquiry, petitioner is at liberty to place all the relevant materials in support of his claim.
10. With the above observation, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.