JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, who was working as a Sub-Staff in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, having been removed from service vide order dated 29th January, 1996 in Annexure-6 and the appeal filed against the said order of removal having also been rejected in Annexure-10, this writ application has been filed challenging the aforesaid two orders. 2. Coming to know about existence of certain vacancies of Sub-Staff in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Petitioner submitted an application for being appointed. An interview was conducted and the Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Sub-Staff in the Cuttack Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India in February, 1993. While working as such, he was served with a notice in Annexure-1 dated 24.9.1993 asking him to submit a reply in relation to the charges made therein. As it appears, the Petitioner at the time of submitting the application for appointment had produced a Transfer Certificate in proof of his date of birth and educational qualification. Subsequently the said certificate was found to be a forged one and, accordingly, the aforesaid charge was framed against him for having entered into service of the Corporation as a Sub-Staff on production of fake and forged Transfer Certificate. The Petitioner submitted his reply and an inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the order of removal was passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, who is the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was also rejected in Annexure-10. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in stead of making any submission on veracity of the charges framed against the Petitioner, drew attention of the Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Bohidar v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vide O.J.C. No. 8643 of 1994 disposed of on 13.8.2008. With reference to the aforesaid judgment, it was contended by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner stands exactly on the same footing as that of the Petitioner in the aforesaid case and the order of termination in the aforesaid case having been set aside, the said decision be made applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. With reference to the aforesaid judgment, it was contended by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner stands exactly on the same footing as that of the Petitioner in the aforesaid case and the order of termination in the aforesaid case having been set aside, the said decision be made applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. Shri Samantray, learned Counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation of India relied on some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that a person, who has entered into the service by producing a forged document, does not deserve any sympathy and, therefore, the order of removal from service can only be the order that could be passed under the circumstances. Shri Samantray, learned Counsel also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others. In the same case, appointment had been made on the basis of a false Caste Certificate and the employee was terminated from service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where an employee obtains an appointment on production of false Caste Certificate, equity, sympathy and generosity have no place in such a situation. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is more or less same as the face of the present case. The Petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bohidar in the aforesaid case was initially engaged as a Badli worker under Life Insurance Corporation of India. A decision was taken by the National Industrial Tribunal that those who were working as Badli workers would be regularized. The Petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bohidar accordingly applied for regularization and after facing an examination, he was selected and was appointed as a Sub-Staff in Class-IV under Life Insurance Corporation of India. While working as such, it was found that he had given a certificate showing him to have passed Class-X from CSB Zilla School, Sambalpur and his death of birth as 15.7.1961 and the said certificate having been found to be forged one, he was removed from service. While working as such, it was found that he had given a certificate showing him to have passed Class-X from CSB Zilla School, Sambalpur and his death of birth as 15.7.1961 and the said certificate having been found to be forged one, he was removed from service. In the said writ application, the Petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bohidar admitted to have produced a forged certificate indicating his death of birth and the educational qualification but submitted that under similar circumstances in respect of some other employees namely, Ramnath Lakra and Stephen Khalko, a lenient view had been taken by the Life Insurance Corporation Authorities and they were not removed from service. One of them namely, Ramanath Lakra was punished with reduction of pay by one stage permanently and other employee namely, Stephen Khalko was punished with reduction of his pay by two stages. This Court relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SC 713 came to hold that the employees standing on the same footing and charged on the same allegations should be dealt with similarly and, accordingly, this Court set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed on the said Petitioner-Deepak Kumar Bohidar and directed the opposite parties to reconsider the question of punishment. 4. Here is a case where the Petitioner did not admit to have produced a forged certificate but upon inquiry it was found that the certificate produced by the Petitioner was forged one. Except this difference there is no other difference in the facts of the present case and in the case of Deepak Kumar Bohidar. In this connection, learned Counsel Shri Samantray referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others. On perusal of the facts involved in the said case, we find that it is completely different and distinguishable from the present case. In this connection, learned Counsel Shri Samantray referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others. On perusal of the facts involved in the said case, we find that it is completely different and distinguishable from the present case. There is no denial of the fact that Ramnath Lakra and Stephen Khalko, who were also appointed as Sub-Staff under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, were found to have produced forged certificates for obtaining appointment, but they were not visited with an order of removal from service whereas the Petitioner in the present case and Deepak Kumar Bohidar, the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 8643 of 1994 on the very same allegation were removed from service. Therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. was relied upon by this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Bohidar and the order of removal was set aside and the opposite parties were directed to reconsider the question of punishment. Having not found differences in the case of Deepak Kumar Bohidar and in the present case, we have no hesitation to rely on the said judgment. 5. Accordingly, we quash the order of punishment in Annexure-6 as well as the order of appellate authority in Annexure-10 and remit the matter back to the opposite parties for reconsideration of the punishment specially considering the punishment imposed on the aforesaid two employees namely, Ramnath Lakra and Stephen Khalko. Since in the case of Deepak Kumar Bohidar, the Court did not grant any back wages for the period he was out of service, it is also directed that the Petitioner in the present case shall not be entitled to back wages for the period he remains out of service.