JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant against the Union of India, for declaration that the order of the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, dated 30-7-1957, dismissing the appellant from service is void and inoperative and for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 585/-. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, but in the appeal filed by the respondent the said decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed by the District Judge, and the appellant has now come up in second appeal. 2. The appellant was a lower division clerk in the Manipur State Transport. Pending a detrimental enquiry, he was placed under suspension on 28-7-1955 and later dismissed from service by the Officer on Special Duty, by his order dated 14-12-1955 and the said dismissal was confirmed by the Chief Commissioner on 24-2-1956. But the said dismissal order was set aside by this Court on 27-3-1957 in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1956*on the ground that the appellant having been appointed by the Chief Commissioner cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the authority who appointed him. * See AIR 1957 Manipur 37 . Thereupon, the appellant wrote to the Officer on Special Duty, Manipur State Transport on 2-4-1957 for reinstatement into service and the Officer on Special Duty wrote on 5-4-1957 for instructions to the Manipur Administration and on that the Chief Commissioner passed an order on 24-5-1957 that the appellant may be re-instated and orders issued accordingly and that draft - charge sheet against him may be put up. Then the order Ext. 13 dated 25-5-1957 was issued by the Manipur Administration directing the re-instatement of the appellant to his former post. A fresh charge memo was then drawn up against the appellant on 28-5-1957 and a further enquiry was held and by an order dated 30-7-1957, the Chief Commissioner dismissed him from service. The appellants appeal to the Government of India was also dismissed on 19-10-1957. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present suit for the reliefs as stated above. 3. A fresh charge memo was then drawn up against the appellant on 28-5-1957 and a further enquiry was held and by an order dated 30-7-1957, the Chief Commissioner dismissed him from service. The appellants appeal to the Government of India was also dismissed on 19-10-1957. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present suit for the reliefs as stated above. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that when the appellant was re-instated in service without any condition or a simultaneous order for making a fresh and further enquiry and by revoking an existing suspension order, it has to be deemed that the authority waived his right to make a fresh or a further enquiry, and that the offence had been condoned and that he has been exonerated. He therefore held that the subsequent enquiry on the same allegation as before was illegal and barred by law. He, therefore, set aside the dismissal order of the appellant and declared that the appellant was still in service and also gave a decree for the arrears of salary claimed. The learned District Judge, in appeal reversed this decision. He held that the appellant was re-instated on 25-5-1957 and that 3 days later, namely, on 28-5-1957, fresh charges were framed against him and hence it cannot be inferred that the misconduct of the appellant was condoned and it was decided not to proceed against him. He therefore held that the second enquiry cannot be held to be illegal and that the order of dismissal which followed on the enquiry cannot be set aside. 4. In second appeal, what was argued before me was again the same question of condonation. It was pointed out that when this Court set aside the first order of dismissal, two courses were open to the Disciplinary Authority. One was to re-instate the delinquent. The other was to follow the procedure provided under Rule 12(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, that is, for the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether to hold a further enquiry against him and if he decides to do so, to continue the delinquent under suspension as before and to hold the enquiry. The other was to follow the procedure provided under Rule 12(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, that is, for the Disciplinary Authority to decide whether to hold a further enquiry against him and if he decides to do so, to continue the delinquent under suspension as before and to hold the enquiry. It was pointed out that in this case though the delinquent was under suspension until the first order of dismissal, the said suspension was not continued when he was re-instated on 25-5-1957 and hence it must be deemed that on 25-5-1957 it was decided to exonerate him and that having thus exonerated him and thereby condoned his offence, the Disciplinary Authority cannot subsequently change his mind and decide to proceed against him on the same set of charges as before. 5. There would have been no difficulty in this case if the respondent had produced the order passed by the Chief Commissioner on 24-5-1957, on the letter received from the Officer on Special Duty, M. S. T. dated 5-4-1957. In that case it would not have been necessary for the Courts below to conjecture whether there was condonation or exoneration when the appellant was re-instated and whether it was as a result of a change of mind that it was decided to proceed against him on the same set of charges. The re-instatement took place on 25-5-1957. The fresh charges are dated 28-5-1957. Even if at the time of re-instatement it was decided to continue the enquiry against him, the framing of the charges etc. will necessarily take a few days time and the nearness of the two dates, namely, 25-5-1957 and 28-5-1957, would show that even when he was re-instated it was decide to continue the enquiry against him. All these difficulties could have been avoided by producing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority when re-instating him into service. This was not done by the respondent in the lower Courts. In this Court, in second, appeal, the respondent wanted to produce a certified copy of the said order from the note file of the Chief Commissioner and permission was granted. It is seen from this that it was not a case of change of mind after the exoneration of the appellant, but that it was decided even when-re-instating him that the charges should be further pressed against him. 6. It is seen from this that it was not a case of change of mind after the exoneration of the appellant, but that it was decided even when-re-instating him that the charges should be further pressed against him. 6. But what was pointed out for the appellant was that if the charges were to be pressed against him after the first dismissal order was set aside by this Court, the procedure to be adopted was prescribed under Rule 12(4) of the C. C. S. (C. C. and A.) Rules, 1957, that the appellant should have been kept under suspension, if the procedure was intended to be adopted, that the fact that the appellant was allowed to join service without being kept under suspension, showed that there was condonation and exoneration and that therefore a fresh enquiry on the same charges was illegal. But this argument is without any force. Suspension of a Government servant pending an enquiry against him is a matter within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority and the fact that he was not suspended pending the! Enquiry against him on the second occasion will not show that it was not contemplated to take proceedings against him when he was re-instated. The new document filed by the respondent clearly shows that even when he was reinstated it had been decided to frame fresh charges against mm and hold an enquiry. I am not therefore prepared to accept the arguments for the appellant that there was exoneration and condonation and that subsequently there was a change of mind and it was decided to proceed against him. After all when this Court set aside the dismissal order in the Writ Application, the Disciplinary Authority had to accept the order and re-instate the appellant in; service. Perhaps, the Disciplinary Authority did not want to keep him under suspension pending a fresh enquiry as he had already been in suspension for a long time. That certainly does not show that the Disciplinary Authority had decided to exonerate him. It is for the appellant to prove that there was such exoneration. That has not been proved in this case. The learned District Judge was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that there was no condonation or exoneration. The appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. Appeal dismissed.