JUDGMENT : V. Prasad, J. This writ appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 24.9.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 22037 setting aside the order dated 30.4.2012, dismissing the respondent from service in a disciplinary proceeding as well as order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of such dismissal. Learned Single Judge consequently remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for further enquiry and directed for reinstatement of respondent with 60% back-wages. 2. W.P. (C) No. 22037 of 2013 was filed by the respondent, namely, Sri Debarchan Pradhan, assailing the order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the Divisional Manager (C-KL), Deogarh dismissing the respondent from service on the charges of doubtful integrity and misconduct. In the said writ petition, the respondent also challenged the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Divisional Manager, Deogarh. 3. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.9.2014 while quashing the aforesaid orders directed the disciplinary authority to probe into the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate furnished by the respondent at the time of his entry into the service and thereafter, proceed with the disciplinary proceeding depending upon the outcome of the said enquiry. Consequently, learned single Judge directed the authorities (appellant herein) to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith and by 60% of the back-wages to respondent treating the period the respondent remained unemployment as service for the purpose of his promotion and retiral benefits. 4. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Corporation vehemently objected to the direction of reinstatement of respondent with 60% back-wages as directed by learned Single Judge. However, in course of argument, he submitted that the Corporation has no difficulty in proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry after taking a decision with regard to the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate submitted by respondent at the time of entry into the service, but he objected to the direction of reinstatement as well as payment of back-wages. He submits that further direction for reinstatement of service and payment of 60% back-wages has no legal basis and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Counsel for the respondent refuted such submission of Mr. He submits that further direction for reinstatement of service and payment of 60% back-wages has no legal basis and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Counsel for the respondent refuted such submission of Mr. Pattnaik and, contended that initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the respondent is pre-mature as the authorities before arriving at a definite conclusion with regard to the genuineness of School Leaving Certificate produced by respondent at the time of entry into the service most hastily proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry and imposed the punishment. Further, initiation of disciplinary enquiry was not justified, more particularly when a probe with regard to the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate was going on and such enquiry was not completed either at the time of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding or when the order of termination was passed holding the respondent guilty of charges and doubtful integrity and misconduct. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record meticulously. 7. On assessment of materials on record, we find that in the midst of probe into the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate produced by the respondent in support of his date of birth at the time of entry into the service, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent-respondent and he was slapped with a punishment of dismissal from service with stigma of doubtful integrity and misconduct. Hence, learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside such enquiry and directing the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the matter after taking a definite decision with regard to the genuineness of the School Leaving certificate in question. We do not find any infirmity with the said finding of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, direction of the learned Single Judge for reinstatement of respondent in service is also justified and the same needs no interference. The writ appeal to this extent stands dismissed. Learned Single Judge further directed the appellant to pay 60% of back-wages to the respondent. Such a direction of learned Single Judge is based on the pre-text that termination of respondent was illegal and unjust and he was compelled to remain out of job for not fault of him. 8. Mr. The writ appeal to this extent stands dismissed. Learned Single Judge further directed the appellant to pay 60% of back-wages to the respondent. Such a direction of learned Single Judge is based on the pre-text that termination of respondent was illegal and unjust and he was compelled to remain out of job for not fault of him. 8. Mr. Katikia, learned Counsel for the respondent though supported the said finding of learned Single Judge but could not produce any material in support to this aspect. The service conditions of the employees of the Corporation are guided by a set of rules, namely, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Service Rules, 1986. Said set of Rules does not contain any such provision for payment of back-wages etc. in event of reinstatement of an employee in service. The Service Jurisprudence is quite different from the Industrial law and they cannot be equated with each other. Industrial law provides for back-wages in the event of reinstatement of an employee or a workman in service. In that view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the learned Single Judge in this aspect. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the direction for payment of 60% of back-wages to the respondent. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we allow the writ appeal in part to the extent stated above, confirm the direction of learned Single Judge, so far as de novo enquiry and reinstatement of respondent is concerned and set aside the direction of learned Single Judge with regard to payment of 60% back-wages to the respondent-employee. We also confirm the rest part of the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. K.R. Mohapatra, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed in part.