N. Ravi Shankar, J.

Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.5345 of 2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal). He filed that OA challenging the order of the second respondent (Superintendent of Police, Guntur) dated 17.05.2005 and confirmed by the first respondent (Inspector General of Police, Guntur – appellate authority) by his order dated 01.09.2005 removing him from the job of Police Constable on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe (ST) but was appointed in a vacancy reserved for STs on his misrepresentation.

2. The Tribunal, after a contest, dismissed the above OA by its order dated 22.11.2006.

Questioning the correctness of the said order, the petitioner has come up with this petition under Article 226. Before we state the points which are raised in this writ petition, the factual background of the matter should be noted.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable by the second respondent through his proceedings dated 12.08.1993 in a vacancy reserved for STs after verification of the certificates produced by him. At the time of recruitment, he produced a certificate which purports to have been given by Tahsildar, Guntur showing his caste as “Boya (Valmiki)” and in that certificate it was stated that petitioner’s caste is an ST. Basing on that certificate, the petitioner declared himself to be an ST and he was given appointment accordingly.

4. Subsequently an anonymous petition was received against the petitioner with the allegation that he did not belong to ST. Thereupon, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 12.03.2003 proposing to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that he cheated the Government by producing a false caste certificate to the effect that he was an ST candidate though he did not belong to any ST community and that constitutes grave misconduct on his part. He submitted an explanation dated 21.03.2003 to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation, the second respondent appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the matter.

5. One Sri Nadapaul, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur, who was the enquiry officer, held enquiry and submitted his report dated 10.03.2004 to the effect that the petitioner’s caste or community Boya (Valmiki) is not notified as an ST under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (Presidential Order) issued under Article 342(1) of the Constitution as amended from time to time. The finding of the enquiry officer was that the community Boya (Valmiki) is not an ST as per the Presidential Order. He further reported that the petitioner claimed to be an ST basing on the above certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the Special Branch acted upon that certificate and the petitioner did not produce any forged certificate.

6. Basing on the above enquiry report, the second respondent concluding that the petitioner submitted false caste certificate and false information, removed him from service by his order dated 17.05.2005 and that was confirmed in appeal by the first respondent in his order dated 01.09.2005 which was again communicated by the second respondent. The Tribunal in its turn confirmed the said orders in the OA.

7. The first contention of Sri Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment has not been cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (Act 16 of 1993) (for short Act), and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore unless that is cancelled by the competent authority under the Act, respondents 1 and 2 have no power to hold any enquiry on the above ground and remove him from service. The above Act was brought into force with effect from 08.05.1997. The Rules were brought into force from 16.05.1997. It is seen