1. The impugned proceedings No.A.G.B./H.O/D.P.I/C.h./668/90-91 dated 14.3.1991 read with A.G.B./H.O/D.P.I.C.H./661/90-91 dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Chairman, Adhiyaman Grama Bank, Dharamapuri, respondent in W.P.4302 of 1991, terminating the services of the petitioner from Clerk-cum-Typist and the impugned proceedings relating to D.Dis.1745/95(D) dated 23.8.95 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, respondent in W.P.14814 of 1995 stating that the community Certificate produced by the petitioner was a bogus one and recommending the Bank to take criminal action against the petitioner, are sought to be challenged in these two writ petitions by seeking the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus and writ of certiorari by quashing the same.

2. Since the issue is the same, it would be appropriate to pass a common order in both these writ petitions.

3. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of these writ petitions are hereunder:K.R.Umarani Devashena, the petitioner herein, after finishing her B.Sc., degree course, applied for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in Adhiyman Grama Bank, Dhamapuri on 30.3.1990. She appeared for written examination. She, having passed the written examination, was called for the interview.

4. After interview, by the order dated 13.3.1990, the petitioner was selected and she was asked to produce community certificate obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since she was not in possession of the certificate given by the Revenue Divisional Officer at that time, she requested the bank for giving some time. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the return of the community certificate from the college and produced the said certificate dated 27.10.1988 stating that she belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which has been described as scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, an appointment order was issued. The petitioner joined duty on 4.4.1990.

5. Meanwhile, on 2.4.1990, the Chairman, Adhiyaman Grama Bank, Dharmapuri sent a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur requesting for verification of the genuineness of the said community certificate.

6. On 11.5.1990, one Sathyamurthy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur wrote a letter to the Chairman, Adhyaman Grama Bank stating that no such certificate was issued from his office to Umarani Devashena and further requesting the Bank to send the original certificate to make a further enquiry on this. In response to the said letter, the Bank sent the original community certificate produced by the petitioner on 22.5.1990 to enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to verify the genuineness and to give a report. This was received by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.5.1990. Subsequently, on 18.6.1990, the respondent Bank sent a letter to the petitioner stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur had informed that he did not issue community certificate to the petitioner and therefore, called upon the petitioner to establish the genuineness of the community certificate. The Bank sent a reminder also on 27.7.1990 to the petitioner, asking her to establish the genuineness of the community certificate.

7. On 13.8.1990, the petitioner replied to the respondent-Bank that the community certificate that was produced by her as genuine and original and the same was issued by one Kaliaperumal, who was the then Revenue Divisional Officer, on 27.10.1988. Subsequently, by a letter dated 27.12.1990, the Chairman of the respondent-bank wrote another letter to the Divisional Officer, Mettur requesting to send the result of the enquiry in regard to the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner. On receipt of the said letter, the said Sathyamurthy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur sent a reply dated 28.12.1990 informing the Bank that the matter was being enquired into and the same is under investigation and since the enquiry in this regard was not yet completed, a reply shall be sent soon, after the completion of the enquiry.

8. By a letter dated 31.12.1990, the respondent-Bank intimated to the petitioner that the matter relating to the genuineness of her community certificate was being enquired into by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur and that the petitioner would be confirmed only after the receipt of clearance report from the Revenue Divisional Officer.

9. The respondent-Bank wrote another letter dated 29.1.1991 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur requesting him to inform his office in writing about the result of the enquiry over the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner.

10. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, on 30.1.1991, sent a notice to the petitioner, through the Bank, asking her to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.2.1991 at about 11 a.m along with the entire records including the school certificates etc. relating to her community to decide about the genuineness of the community certificate produced by her in the Bank. The said notice was served on the petitioner by the Bank along with a covering letter dated 5.2.1991.

11. After service of the notice on the petitioner, the Bank wrote a letter dated 5.2.1991 to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the service of the notice. The Bank sent another letter to the petitioner, advising her to be present before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.2.1991 at 11 a.m.

12. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 5.3.1991 sent by the Bank informing her that the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated in his report that the community certificate dated 27.10.1983 was not at all issued from their office and that the petitioner has not produced satisfactory evidence in support of her community and therefore, she would be under probation until the question is to be decided finally by the Bank. On the same day, i.e., on 5.3.1991, the Bank sent a show cause notice to the petitioner asking her as to why her appointment as clerk/shroff in the Bank which was made on the basis of her community should not be cancelled since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur sent a report that the community certificate dated 27.10.1988 was not at all issued from their office.

13. On receipt of the above show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her reply stating that right from her education in primary school till her graduation in the college, her community has been described as Konda Reddy and she has got all the records which had already been produced to the Bank and the respondent - Bank could verify the same, if it wishes and requested that she should be confirmed in the service. She also contended in her explanation dated 7.3.1991 that her parents and relatives, all belong to the said community, as it would be evidenced from the community certificates produced in the school and college records. She further requested through the letter giving the explanation, requesting for a copy of the enquiry proceedings and report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the community certificate dated 27.10.1988.

14. Without considering the above said documents and without furnishing the Revenue Divisional Officers report to the petitioner and without conducting further enquiry, the Bank sent a letter dated 11.3.1991 cancelling her appointment in the Bank under Scheduled Tribe category, as there was no satisfactory reply and advised her to treat the said letter as notice stipulating the period of thirty days for termination of service. Again by an impugned order dated 14.3.1991, the respondent- Bank informed the petitioner that she will be terminated by the close of business hours on 11.4.1991.

15. Challenging the above impugned orders dated 11.3.1991 cancelling the appointment and dated 14.3.1991, terminating the services from 11.4.1991, the petitioner filed the above writ petition in W.P.No.4302 of 1991 seeking for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and direct the Bank to confirm the petitioner in the post of clerk-cum-Typist.

16. This Honourable Court had admitted the said writ petition and passed an order in W.M.P.No.6608 of 1991 staying the threatened termination proceedings. Subsequently, the interim stay granted was made absolute.

17. During the pendency of the above main writ petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, the second Respondent, issued the impugned proceedings dated 23.8.1995 and sent the same to the first respondent-Bank stating that the community Certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer and that it was a bogus certificate and also recommending the Bank to take criminal action against the petitioner. As against the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.14814 of 1995 and obtained stay from this Court on 25.6.1996 in W.M.P.No.23587 of 1995.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned proceedings in both the writ petitions, would contend that the cancellation of the appointment and termination of services of the petitioner on the basis of the letter sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the community Certificate dated 27.10.1988 produced by the petitioner was not issued from their office and recommending criminal action, are quite illegal, as both the orders were passed by the respective Authorities without conducting proper enquiry.

19. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of the petition would support the impugned proceedings.

20. In the light of the rival contentions, the short point that arises for consideration is, whether the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Bank, stating that the community certificate of the petitioner was a bogus one, could be acted upon by the Bank when there is no enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer and whether the cancellation of appointment and termination of services of the petitioner without conducting further enquiry would be legal.

21. On going through the records and after having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the clear opinion that the action of the respondent-Bank in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and terminating her from services merely on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is quite illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

22. Though the counsel for the parties would cite several authorities to substantiate their pleas, I am of the view that both the impugned proceedings could be quashed and set aside on a short ground.

23. Even according to the respondent-Bank, it sent letters dated 2.4.1990, 22.5.1990, 27.12.1990, and 29.1.1991 requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the community Certificate dated 27.10.1988 produced by the petitioner.

24. Through a letter dated 11.5.1990, Sathyamurthy, the Revenue Divisional Officer, wrote to the Bank stating that no Community Certificate was issued to K.R.Umarani Deveshena and requesting the Bank to send the original community certificate. Accordingly, on 22.5.1990, the Bank sent the original community Certificate produced by the petitioner for conducting further enquiry. For the reminder sent by the Bank on 27.5.90, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur sent a letter dated 28.12.1990 stating that the enquiry with regard to the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner is not yet completed and the report would be sent soon, after completion of the enquiry. Accordingly, the Bank wrote a letter dated 31.12.1990 to the petitioner stating that since the Revenue Divisional Officer by letter dated 28.12.1990 informed the Bank that the enquiry with regard to her community certificate is not yet completed, her confirmation of services would be made only after getting the Enquiry Report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur.

25. Thereafter, on 29.1.1991, the Bank sent a reminder to the Revenue Divisional Officer to furnish the Enquiry Report and inform the result of the same. Only after this, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a notice dated 30.1.1991 asking the petitioner to come and appear before him on 11.2.1991 at 11.a.m. along with all the records, in order to find out the genuineness of the community mentioned in the Certificate. The said Notice is as follows:

26. A perusal of the above notice would make it clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer wanted to give an opportunity to the petitioner, in order to find out whether she actually belongs to Konda Reddy Community and the said community certificate is a genuine one. In other words, the Revenue Divisional Officer was not only called upon to find out whether the certificate is a genuine one, but also to conduct enquiry as whether she actually belongs to Konda Reddy. That was the reason why, by notice dated 30.1.1990, the petitioner was summoned to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.2.91 along with all the connected records, including the school certificates. But, strangely, the Bank, on 5.3.1991, wrote a letter to the Petitioner stating that they have received the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur stating that the community certificate dated 27.10.1988 was not at all issued from their office and as such, she will be under probation until the question regarding the Community is decided finally by the Bank.

27. Curiously, on the very same day i.e., on 5.3.1991, the respondent-Bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled as she has failed to produce satisfactory evidence in support of her community. In reply to the show cause notice dated 5.3.1991, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation giving details about the various documents already produced. However, without conducting further enquiry, by the orders dated 11.3.1991 and 14.3.1991, she was intimated that her appointment was cancelled and her services were terminated with effect from 11.4.1991.

28. Two important factors that would emerge from the details mentioned above are as follows:

(i) Though the Revenue Divisional Officer has commenced the enquiry by asking the petitioner to appear before him with all her connected documents, he has not gone into the documents produced and without going into those documents, he simply intimated the Bank that the said community certificate was not issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer. This means, virtually, he did not go into the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community or not.

(ii) Though in the letter dated 5.3.1991, the respondent-Bank had intimated to the petitioner that her probation will not be confirmed until the question relating to her community is decided finally by the Bank, admittedly, there was no further enquiry conducted by the Bank in regard to the community to which the petitioner belongs.

29. The impugned orders dated 11.3.1991 and 14.3.1991 would simply say that there was no satisfactory reply from the petitioner. So, virtually, the Bank accepted the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and decided to terminate the petitioner from service by completely ignoring the reply given by her and other materials available on record for deciding about the community to which she belongs. These things would clearly show that both the authorities would come to the conclusion that the community certificate dated 27.10.1988 produced by the petitioner was not genuine, merely for the reason that the said Kaliaperumal gave a statement that he never issued any community certificate during that period. In other words, both the authorities never ventured to look into the documents produced by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Bank to find out whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community.

30. As per the affidavit, the following documents have been produced by the petitioner to prove that she belongs to Konda Reddy Community:

(i) The records in the elementary school in Chinnathaida of the Kulathur Panchyat Union.

(ii) Records in the elementary school in Bothapadi of the Kulathur Panchayat Union.

(iii) Records in the elementary school in Kulathur.

(iv) Records in the St.Marys Elementary School, Mettur Dam.

(v) Extract of S.S.L.C. dated 31.5.1982.

(vi) Transfer Certificate dated 10.6.1985 issued by the Nirmala Higher Secondary School.

(vii) The Transfer Certificate dated 31.5.1982 of the St.Marys Higher Secondary School.

(viii) Transfer Certificate dated 31.5.1988 issued by the Namakkal Kavingnar Ramalingam Government Women Arts College.

(ix) Registered Sale Deed dated 7.6.1982 in favour of the petitioners mother K.R.Ovakkal.

(x) The Community Certificate dated 13.9.1978 issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur Dam.

(xi) The Community Certificate dated 27.10.1988 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam.

As indicated above, these documents have not been considered by both the

Authorities and therefore, the entire proceedings, would suffer from infirmity.

31. This matter could be viewed from yet another angle. It is settled law that relating to the community, the collector alone is the competent authority to decide about the question. In the instant case, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted the enquiry and sent the report.

32. No doubt, it is true that the District Collector who is the Competent Authority can delegate the authority to conduct discreet enquiry and to file a report. But, on receipt of the said report and other records, the District Collector has to summon the petitioner and to serve the copies of the report and other records and shall offer further opportunity to substantiate her claim by adducing materials to prove that she belongs to Konda Reddy Community. This is not, admittedly done. So, on this ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

33. This Court, in the decision reported in R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem , (1999)1 MLJ. 773 [LQ/MadHC/1997/1063] :A.I.R. 1999 Mad. 221, [LQ/MadHC/1998/1588] while referring about the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court and Apex Court, would give guidelines as to how the enquiry is to be conducted, what sort of an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner and by whom the enquiry to be conducted etc. But, unfortunately, this was not taken note of by the Authorities concerned.

34. Under those circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed on the following terms:

(i) The impugned orders are quashed.

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the District Collector with a direction to decide the matter afresh after offering full opportunity to the petitioner to prove her claim. The Collector also shall take note of the guidelines given by this Court and the Apex Court which are referred to in the decision reported in R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem R.Ravichandran v. Collector of Salem , (1999)1 MLJ. 773 [LQ/MadHC/1997/1063] :A.I.R. 1999 Mad. 221 [LQ/MadHC/1998/1588] .

(iii) Before commencing enquiry, a copy of the report given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, if any and other documents that are proposed to be relied upon by the Collector are to be furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be given time to file an objection and adduce evidence to substantiate her claim. Subsequently, the Collector shall decide the matter as to whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community.

(iv) After finishing the enquiry, the Collector shall decide the matter and send the report to the respondent-Bank. The said enquiry must be completed and the result should be intimated to the respondent-Bank within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(v) The respondent-Bank may take appropriate action only after receipt of the said report.

35. It is noticed that as per the decision reported in Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu , (1999)2 MLJ. 232 [LQ/MadHC/1980/417] , now a District High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted in pursuance of the direction given in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development , A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 94. If it is so, the present enquiry will be required to be conducted by the District High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee instead of Collector.

36. Therefore, the Collector or Scrutiny Committee shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner furnishing the relevant documents pertaining to the reports in regard to the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allow her to examine her witnesses and file the documents and thereafter, decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

37. With the above directions, writ petitions are allowed, No costs. Consequently, Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.