Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 6.1.2006, Annexure P. 5, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 2. Case of respondent No. 2 was that he was appointed as Fireman on 18.5.2004. His services were terminated vide order dated 5.1 1.2004 under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short, `the Rules) in terms of Paras 2 and 3(f) of the appointment letter. He challenged the order of termination on the ground that Clause (f) of the appointment letter could not be invoked as he had not suppressed any material fact. This was contested on behalf of the petitioners with the plea that the experience certificate furnished by him was false. 3. The CAT upheld the claim of respondent No. 2. It was held that allegation of furnishing fake certificate was not substantiated and thus, order of termination from service was not justified. He was held entitled to continuity of service and back wages. Liberty was also given to enquire into the circumstances under which false certificate came on record. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The finding that a genuine certificate had been furnished by respondent No. 2 and the fake certificate, which was found on record, was not furnished by respondent No. 2 has not been shown to be perverse. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, quashing the order of termination from service. 6. We, however, find merit in the submission that award of back wages was not justified. As held in U.P. SRTC Limited v. Sarada Prasad Misra, (2006)4 SCC 733, it is for the employee to prove that he was not gainfully employed. In JK Synthetics Limited v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433 , it was noticed that the Court must take a pragmatic view on the issue of back wages having regard to the fact that the employer may not be compelled to pay for the period during which the employee did not contribute anything and there was no precise formula that back wages must be mechanically ordered, wherever termination is set aside. 7. In view of above, the petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction for back wages. In other respects, the order of the CAT is upheld. 7. In view of above, the petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction for back wages. In other respects, the order of the CAT is upheld. The petition is disposed of.