THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23110 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner secured employment in Judicial Service by claiming the status of scheduled tribe. Proceedings were initiated against him under the Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) for cancellation of the caste certificate. The Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, the first respondent herein, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and entrusted the enquiry to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). The Committee is said to have conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the first respondent. A notice, dated 29.09.2009, was issued by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 16.10.2009. The petitioner challenges the same. It is urged that the Act and the Rules made thereunder provide for conducting and conclusion of enquiry by the Committee and once that stage is over, it is not open to the first respondent to repeat the exercise. It is also pleaded that the findings recorded by the Committee assume finality and the first respondent cannot reopen the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Act confers specific powers upon the District Collector to cancel the caste certificate issued to any individual. In the Rules framed under the Act, a District Level Scrutiny Committee is constituted, obviously, to aid and assist the District Collector in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. However, the report submitted by the Committee cannot be treated as final. The findings recorded by it are subject to either acceptance or rejection by the District Collector. The whole exercise is comparable to disciplinary proceedings under the service law. Even where an Enquiry Officer records findings on the charges, it is, ultimately, for the disciplinary authority either to accept or not to accept the findings. In case the disciplinary authority differs with the findings, the law requires that it must issue notice to the employee afresh. Following the same analogy, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept in. The petitioner can put forward his contentions before the first respondent and he can also insist on furnishing a copy of the report submitted by the Committee. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on a date that may be fixed by him afresh. During the course of enquiry before the first respondent, the petitioner shall be furnished a copy of the report submitted by the Committee. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.10.2009 kdl