Judgment 1. After having gone through the entire records there were two options before the Court. These options were indicated to learned counsel for the contesting respondent Yadunandan Kumar alias Brajnandan Kumar. The first option was that having noticed the entire record and the submission, the contesting respondent, otherwise from a backward class, bound to a Yadav family, it is claimed was taken for adoption in another family. The contesting respondent claims the caste of foster parents. Other issues are that the foster father took another woman; not ignoring the aspect that even the foster parents denied the adoption of the contesting respondent. They say they have a son of their own, who was brought up as a scheduled caste and the contesting respondent was not their son by adoption or otherwise. 2. In the circumstances on the story which was set up by the contesting respondent, a departmental proceeding was initiated. A criminal case was also initiated. He laid claims as having the caste of his adopted parents, who were scheduled castes. The so calied parents denied the adoption. The best evidence went against the contesting respondent, This implies in so far as the criminal case is concerned, if at any stage it may have ended in acquittal, it was clearly a mistrial. 3. The balance which remains is that the contesting respondent belonged to the backward class category and he remains in this category. 4. In the circumstances, the appeal of the State challenging the order of the learned Judge on the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2087/89 succeeds. The departmental enquiry was never without jurisdiction and there was an issue presented by the claim of the contesting respondent. The order dated 9.10.1996 on the aforesaid writ petition is set aside. 5. For the period of suspension, which is from 1.3.1965 to 4.1.1989, the contesting respondent will not be permitted salary but only subsistence allowance. 6. The State Counsel submits that hereinafter the department does not propose to take out any further enquiry regard being had to the circumstances and the observations in this order. 7. The appeal of the State succeeds with costs.