SYNDICATE BANK Vs. VIDYA G NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(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. According to her, she obtained legal opinion and in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in N.E Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, having regard to the fact that she had been accepted by her husband's family and as also at the instance of her husband, she stated in her application form that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe. A departmental enquiry was held and she was dismissed from her service on April 30, 1988 where against a writ petition was filed by her which was marked as W.P. No. 6732 of 1998. Altamas Kabir, J.

(3.) by reason of the impugned order held that the said order of dismissal was illegal.