Adherence to natural justice principles, including effective cross-examination and disclosure of adverse material, is crucial in administrative proceedings affecting civil rights.

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the first respondent, in and by which the first respondent recommended the third respondent to confiscate and cancel the community certificate issued to the writ petitioner and directed the second respondent to take stringent criminal action against the petitioner for obtaining bogus “Hindu Kondareddis” Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Succinctly put, the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under: According to the petitioner, he belongs to Kondareddis Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community, and a community certificate to that effect was issued to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem on 19.12.1995. The said communal status was also recorded in school certificates of the petitioner.

3. One P.Appusamy has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11410 of 2015 before this Court alleging that the petitioner herein does not belong to Hindu Kondareddis Community. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 17.06.2015, by recording that an enquiry into the verification of the community certificate of the petitioner is pending with the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

4. Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee issued notices and pending enquiry, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell, Salem, which, according to the petitioner, did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, and sent a report to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to Kondareddis community.

5. On receipt of the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Secretary to Government is stated to have issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.No.33217 of 2015 before this Court. However, the first respondent proceeded with the enquiry and passed final orders on 6.11.2015 cancelling the community certificate issued to the petitioner.

6. Assailing the said order dated 06.11.2015, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37233 of 2015, wherein an order of interim stay was granted on 07.12.2015. Thereafter, the first respondent withdrew the proceedings cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner. Recording the same, this Court, by order dated 09.12.2015, dismissed the above said two writ petitions as infructuous.

7. When things stood thus, it is averred that the Director of Tribal Welfare issued notice on 08.03.2016 calling for an explanation from the petitioner qua the report of the Vigilance Cell Officer. Calling into question the said notice, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.14532 of 2016. In the said writ petition, this Court, by order dated 09.03.2017, directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and the first respondent was directed to consider the matter in the light of the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil case, referred supra.

8. Consequent to the same, the first respondent issued notice dated 10.07.2017 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 25.07.2017 with documents as specified in the said notice. The petitioner appeared for the enquiry, but sought to buy time to submit a reply. However, the first respondent closed the enquiry and passed the final order on 31.8.2017 holding that the community certificate of the petitioner is not genuine and as a sequitur, directed the third respondent to cancel the community certificate and the second respondent to take stringent criminal action against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the bare bones of principles of natural justice have not been followed while passing the impugned order. He added that the reports and supporting documents relied upon by the first respondent in pa