ORDER 1. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay in C.W.P. No.5413 of 2001. 2. The respondent was appointed as Machine Operator Grade-II in the office of appellant No.2 with effect from 16.10.1978 and in due course of time was confirmed in service. He was, however, issued a show cause notice on 04.06.1985 on three charges. The first charge was that he had produced a false certificate claiming to be belonging to 'Hindu Bandi" community which is a Scheduled Caste community in Karnataka; while the second charge was that he had given false work experience; in that; as against the required length of three years of experience, the respondent had only three months' of work experience as a trainee in an Organization named M/s Swifts Pvt. Ltd. The third charge need not detain us, as it was not found to be substantiated at the stage of appeal. 3. The appellant tendered his response whereafter an Inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer vide his order dated 30.04.1992 found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended that the respondent be removed from service. The respondent was thereafter removed from service which order was challenged in a departmental appeal. However, the Appellate Authority by order dated 15.11.1995 affirmed the view and dismissed the appeal. A challenge was thereafter raised by way of Original Application No.1202 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal[1], Mumbai but his application was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.11.2000. [1] ('the Tribunal' for short) 4. In these circumstances, a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No.5413 of 2001 was preferred in the High Court. The High Court went into the factual aspects of the matter and found that the respondent had never availed of the benefit as one belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. On the second issue regarding work experience, the High Court observed that all the relevant certificates were appended to the application form preferred by the respondent and despite there being inadequacy on the experience front, the authorities had appointed him to the relevant post. In the ultimate analysis, the High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and passed following operative directions: "(i) Rule in the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the ultimate analysis, the High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and passed following operative directions: "(i) Rule in the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) The order removing the petitioner from service is set aside. (iii) Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. However, the respondents shall hold an inquiry to find out as to how much amount was being earned by the petitioner during the period he was removed from the service till he was reinstated in service. The amount that may be arrived at by the respondents, after holding the inquiry, shall be deducted from the amount payable to the petitioner as back wages. (iv) Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. It is further directed that the inquiry which is directed to be held by the respondents for the purpose of calculation the amount of back wages, shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of reinstatement and payment shall be made to the petitioner." 6. While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition preferred against the decision of the High Court, this Court by order dated 28.07.2008 granted ad interim stay which was later confirmed and special leave to appeal was granted. 7. In this appeal, we have heard Ms. Rakha Pandey, learned Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. 8. The record indicates that the respondent had undoubtedly appended certain certificates along with his application form. According to said certificates, the work experience of the respondent was only for a period of about three months. However, an assertion was made by him in the application form that he was having work experience of a year and three months. 9. Be that as it may, since the High Court has allowed the writ petition, we are not inclined to enter into the controversy afresh. But at the same time, the direction to grant full back wages to the respondent, in our view, would not be sustainable. For the entire period, the respondent had not worked and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him cannot be said to be completely devoid of any substance or without any merit. 10. But at the same time, the direction to grant full back wages to the respondent, in our view, would not be sustainable. For the entire period, the respondent had not worked and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him cannot be said to be completely devoid of any substance or without any merit. 10. In the circumstances, while affirming the view taken by the High Court regarding setting aside of the order of removal of the respondent, we direct that the respondent shall not be entitled to any back wages. In effect, the respondent shall be deemed to be reinstated but without any benefit of back wages and consequently, all that he would be entitled to is to have the entire period reckoned as period in service for the purposes of retiral and pensionary benefits. 11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.