IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6317 of 2009 Between: B. Demudu S/o. Laxman O/o. The Traffic Manager, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust,Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Traffic Department, rep. by its Traffic Manager, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: Ms.V.Umadevi The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 18-03-2009 passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner has been kept under suspension. On 25-03-2009, when this writ petition came up for admission and hearing, Ms.V.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, took time to get instructions and produce record. Accordingly, the case has been adjourned and today, the learned Standing Counsel reported ready to argue the case. Hence, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner was appointed as Hamali in the year 1978 in Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Presently, he is working as a Marker. He was given employment treating him as belonging to Yanadi (ST) community. By the impugned order, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension under Regulation 7(i) of the Visakhapatnam Port Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1968 (for short “the Regulations”) with effect from 17-03- 2009, pending enquiry. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent has not indicated the reasons for keeping the petitioner under suspension. The learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner failed to produce the original certificate, asked for by the respondent, he was placed under suspension. Ms.V.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the District Collector sent letter dated 25-08-2008 to the Chairman of the respondent-Corporation, wherein he informed the latter that in respect of five persons including the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Tendurthi, Conducted an enquiry and reported that they belong to ‘Koppula Velama’ (B.C-D) but not to SC/ST category and that by the said letter, the District Collector, requested the respondent for sending a copy of the community certificate to him for taking necessary action. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that as the petitioner secured employment on the basis of a false community certificate, he was placed under suspension, pending initiation of enquiry. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties. The Andrha Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) governs the procedure for issue of community certificates and their cancellation. Specific procedure has been prescribed under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under Section 5 of the Act, the District Collector is empowered to cancel the community certificate, if it is found to be false and a notification in that regard shall be issued. Under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules”), a District Level Scrutiny Committee for each District is constituted and under Rule 9 of the Rules, where the District Collector receives a written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class has obtained a false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate, he shall refer the case to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee thereupon shall hold an enquiry giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned and submit a report. On the basis of such report, the District Collector is empowered to cancel the community certificate under Section 5 of the Act. If a person is aggrieved by an order so passed, he is entitled to avail the remedies of appeal, review and revision under Rules 10, 11 and 12 of the Rules respectively. In the instant case, the letter of the District Collector referred to above, makes a reference to a purported enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar. The record further reveals that the original certificate of the petitioner has not been cancelled. Unless the community certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules referred to above, the respondent has no jurisdiction to treat the said certificate as fake or false. As the special statute referred to above governs the procedure for cancellation of community certificates, the respondent is denuded of the jurisdiction to examine the genuineness or otherwise of such a certificate. It is only after a final order is passed by the competent authority on the genuineness of the community certificate, that the respondent will get jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the respondent cannot legitimately claim that it is in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. Therefore exercise of power under Regulation 7(i) of the Regulations on the ground of “pending enquiry” cannot be sustained in law. The respondent, as noted above, can only initiate or contemplate enquiry, after the proceedings, if any, initiated under the Act are concluded and a final order is passed. When the respondent has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings, it is not entitled to suspend the petitioner by invoking Regulation 7(i) of the Regulations. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude the respondent from taking appropriate action against the petitioner if and when the competent authority under the Act passes a final order on the nature of the community certificate of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th March, 2009 vrn