L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the proceedings of Collector and district Magistrate, Srikakulam in rc. No. 4293/88, B-10, dated 3-11-1993 whereunder the caste certificate dated 5-7-1983 issued by the Tahsildar, Palakonda to the petitioner was cancelled.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that she belongs to Holva community, which is a scheduled Tribe. According to her, her forefathers are from Kalahandi area of Orissa state, her father migrated to Sirusuvada village of Srikakulam District where many people of their tribe were living. She passed s. S. C. Examination in the year 1981 and her caste was recorded as "oriya Brahmin (Holva)". She was issued a certificate by the tahsildar, Palakonda on 5-7-1983, after conducting enquiry certifying that she belongs to Holva community.

( 3 ) IN the year 1983-84, she appeared for b. S. R. B. examination and was selected for clerical post and was appointed as clerk in canara Bank, Chettivari Palem, Gajuwaka, visakhapatnam. When she was working in that post, the Assistant General Manager of canara Bank, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 4-2-1988 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation Since he believed that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was false. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 12-2-1988.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein issued a show-cause notice dated 23-5-1992 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the caste certificate issued to her by the Tahsildar, palakonda, on 5-7-1983 should not be cancelled. She was also directed to appear before him on 15-6-1992.

( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted her explanation on 22-6-1992 reiterating her claim that she belongs to Holva community and the certificate dated 5-7-1983 is valid and genuine. Despite the same, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. Hence the Writ Petition.

( 6 ) THE 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the 4th respondent requested the 1st respondent to enquire into the genuinety of the caste certificate of the petitioner. On this the 1st respondent got the matter enquired by the mandal Revenue Officers of Kotturu and veeraghattam Mandals. The Mandal revenue Officer, Kotturu, the 2nd respondent submitted a report to the effect that he enquired with the local persons who revealed that the father of the petitioner belongs to Oriya Brahmin community and not Holva Scheduled Tribe community. The 1st respondent has also collected other materials in the form of school record of the petitioner and that of her other family members which revealed that the claim of the petitioner was not genuine. Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to substantiate her plea. The 1st respondent also submitted that though art opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear before him, she did not appear. On the basis of the explanation submitted by her, the matter was considered and the impugned order was passed after discussing each and every aspect of the matter at length and that the proceedings do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. The counter- affidavit in a way reproduces the entire impugned order.

( 7 ) THE respondents 3 and 4 who are employers of the petitioner though did not file any counter-affidavit have supported the stand of respondents 1 and 2.

( 8 ) SRI T. S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the show-cause notice is based upon the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent. He submits that admittedly the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent was without notice to the petitioner. Neither the report filed by the 2nd respondent nor the various statements recorded by him in arriving at the conclusion were furnished to the petitioner. Since the show-cause notice as well as impugned order have been based on the enquiry and report of the 2nd respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document