A.K.Rajan, J.

1. This writ appeal is against the order of dismissal of W.P.No.4329 of 1988, dated 26.2.1997. The writ petition was filed to quash the order of the first respondent in RC.M2/60313/87, dated 1.2.1988.

2. The case of the appellant is that he belongs to "Konda Reddy" community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribe, under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 passed by the President of India exercising the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The appellant applied for grant of community certificate in the year 1977. The Tahsildar after due consideration issued the community certificate on 5.11.1977 that the appellant belongs to "Konda Reddy" community. Thereafter, through employment exchange, he appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant/Typist in the third respondent insurance company in the year 1978 and was selected; he was appointed as Assistant/Typist in TiruchirapalIi branch of the third respondent. By order dated 29.6.1979, he was confirmed in the services. While so, suddenly on 12.6.1987, he received a show cause notice from the first respondent as to why his community certificate should not be cancelled. From the notice, it is seen that the first respondent has come to the conclusion that the appellant does not belong to "Konda Reddy" community on the basis of the discreet enquiry conducted by the second respondent, the entries found in the S.S.L.C. book. and the statement of the villagers.

3. The case of the appellant is that the discreet enquiry conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 is not valid and it should have been conducted after giving prior notice to the appellant and also while recording the statement from the villagers, notice should have been given to the appellant and only in his presence, such statements should have been recorded. Therefore, the manner in which the discreet enquiry was conducted is invalid and therefore, the statements recorded in that process cannot be relied upon to decide that the appellant does not belong to "Konda Reddy" community and to cancel the certificate issued already. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry report was not communicated to the appellant is not acceptable. Learned single Judge has also stated that there is no need under law to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the appellant in the case of discreet enquiry. Against that order of dismissal, this writ appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that even in the case of discreet enquiry, the authority should have furnished the copy of the enquiry report; also the statement of the villagers should not have been recorded in the appellant's absence, and without giving prior intimation to him; hence the discreet enquiry is vitiated.

5. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision reported in C.Baskaran v. The District Collector, Trichy, 1997 W.L.R.33, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

The grievance of the petitioner/appellant is that the Collector had held a discreet enquiry and on the basis of that, has recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community. Copies of the statements recorded and the copies of documents collected during the course of the discreet enquiry were not made available to the petitioner. No doubt, the District Collector has heard the petitioner and he has filed his objections' explanation. But, a reading of the order of the District Collector reveals that his conclusion is based upon the result of the discreet enquiry, copies of which had not been furnished to the petitioner. Thus, there is breach of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further argued that in a decision reported in Gulzar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1999 (3) S.C.C. 107, it has been held, It