( 1 ) WHETHER an employee, upon marriage to a member of Scheduled Tribe can be said to have committed misconduct by describing herself as a member of Scheduled Tribe, although her father is said to be a Brahmin is the question involved in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein was appointed on December 12, 1983 by the appellant in the post of clerk, reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. She was married to K. Gobardhan Naik, who is a member of Maradi Tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. Her father made a complaint that he was a Brahmin, and, thus, his daughter obtained employment by misrepresentation and on the basis of such complaint a chargesheet had been issued to the opposite party asking for explanation for securing employment in the bank in the "reserved Quota" by suppressing material facts. In her reply, dated October 2, 1986, the respondent, inter alia, stated that she was not aware as to which caste she belonged to, as her mother was only a concubine of her father being a professional dancer. It was further stated that even her father's parents were not legally married and thus, did not belong to any particular caste. Ac