that at the time of enquiry into the community status of an individual, the individual, who is likely to be affected, should be given a fair opportunity. Every document which may be relied upon by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which is adverse to the employee, should be supplied with a copy of the report. In the present case, the order impugned does not refer to the service of copy of the report of Vigilance Cell on the petitioner during or before the enquiry. Even though the petitioner's documents may not be sufficient, the reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as to his community status is by relying upon the report of anthropologist as well the report of Vigilance cell. The petitioner has enclosed the report of Vigilance cell as well the report of anthropologist. Even in the counter affidavit, it is not indicated as to whether the reports were furnished to the petitioner before passing order. The report of Vigilance cell according to the first respondent was forwarded to Government vide letter dated 24.12.2019. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner was supplied with the copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell, this Court finds that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
