Hansaria. J. — The petitioner had joined the Assam Government Construction Corporation, hereinafter the Corporation, as Junior Assistant on probation. This was on 12.5. 1969. In 1973 be Was asked by the Administrative Officer of the Corporation to produce, inter alia, his Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner's cafe is that he having lost ;,the original Certificate produced an attested copy. He was however asked to obtain duplicate copy of the certificate. According to the petitioner, he wrote many letters to the Headmaster of the School from which he had passed the Examination, as well as to the Dacca Board of Education thereafter to obtain a duplicate copy, but to no effect The Corporation in the mean time made some enquiries from the Controller of Examinations, Dacca Board of Education, through the High Commissioner of India and on receiving confirmation that no student in the name of the petitioner had appeared in the Matriculation Examination from Maulvi Bazar Centre Sylhet in 1949, instituted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner on 18,4.80. The charge was that he had made a false, statement in his application dated 11.3. 69 and 24.1.69, that he had passed the Matriculation Examination. This was regarded as an 'act of forgery' and an Attempt to cheat the Corporation. He was therefore, asked to show cause as to why he should not be removel or dismissed from service. The petitioner denied the allegations whereupon an enquiry was held by Shri H. N; Chakraborty, the then Chief Engineer. In the inquiry, one Shri R. M. Shonoe, who had attested the petitioner's Matriculation Certificate, was examined. No witness was examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was intimated that the Inquiry Officer found the charge established and so he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner showed cause. As no further action was taken by the Corporation, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation. The Chairman took the view that the petitioner must have produced his original Matriculation Examination Certi­ficate at the time of initial appointment and as he was also promoted thereafter, the Corporation must have seen the original certificate. The Chairman therefore desired that the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the present post and given all increments. his or­der of the Chairman was passed on 20. 6. 87. The Chairman therefore desired that the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the present post and given all increments. his or­der of the Chairman was passed on 20. 6. 87. In the mean time, the petitioner made effort to obtain a duplicate copy of his Matriculation Certificate, but he was informed by a letter dated 10. 1.81 issued by the High Commissioner of India in Dacca that the records relating to Matriculation Examination of 1949 was not available. 2. The Corporation found the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted by Shri Chakraborty as incomplete and defective. The petitioner was, therefore, informed that a fresh enquiry shall be held. For this purpose, Shri M, Zaman, Chief Engineer, Assam Police Housing Corporation as appointed was the Inquiry Officer. An enquiry was theieafter held by Shri Zaman in which two witnesses were examined for the management and the petitioner also examined two witnesses including the aforesaid Shri Shome. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge was established. The petitioner was therefore issued a second show cause notice on' 1.12.82. This notice was impugned in Civil Rule No. 1355/82 and this Court disposed of the petition by stating that till cause is shown by the petitioner, no action would be taken against him. The petiti­oner thereafter submitted his reply on 5. 1, 83 and thereafter another show cause notice was served on him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. After perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the cause shown by the petitioner respondent No. 3, the Managing Director of the Corpo­ration, was satisfied that he had made a false representation to the Corporation while securing job that he was a Matriculate which constituted gross misconduct and so dismissed him from service. I' is this dismissal order dated 17. 7. 85 which has been impugned in the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The first submission advice by Shri Homchoudhury is that afresh enquiry by Shri Zaman after the matter tad been enquired by Shri H.N. Chakraborty was not permissible, more so, when the Chairman of the Corporation had asked the Managing Director to allow the petitioner to continue in his post. 3. The first submission advice by Shri Homchoudhury is that afresh enquiry by Shri Zaman after the matter tad been enquired by Shri H.N. Chakraborty was not permissible, more so, when the Chairman of the Corporation had asked the Managing Director to allow the petitioner to continue in his post. la this connection, we have been referred to State of Assam vs. J. N. Roy, AIR J 975 SC 2277, in which it has been held that once a disciplinary case is closed and the official reinstated presumably on full exoneration, a chagrined Government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of specific powers to review or revise vested by rule. It is however pointed out in this decision that no Government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first inquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, that a second enquiry cannot be launched. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on Pabitra Ranjan vs. Collector of Customs, AIR 1671 A&N 281, wherein it was held that a second enquiry on the same charge after exoneration in the first is against enquiry and justice. As in the present case, the second enquiry was instituted on the ground that the enquiry report of Shri Chakraborty was incomplete and defective, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been exonerated in the first enquiry. Though the enquiry report of Shri Chakraborty is not on record, from what has been stated by the petitioner in his reply to the second show came notice issued following the report of Shri Chakraborty, it is clear that Shri Chakraborty had also come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not passed the Matriculation Examination in 1949. This appears from the statement made in para 7 of the second show cause notice as at Annexure-7. So, we do find fault with the holding of the second enquiry by Shri Zaman. 4 The important point is whether it could be conclusively held that from the materials on record that the petitioner had made a false state-meat regarding his having passed the Matriculation Examination. Shri Homchoudhury has submitted that the materials on record did not justify the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. 4 The important point is whether it could be conclusively held that from the materials on record that the petitioner had made a false state-meat regarding his having passed the Matriculation Examination. Shri Homchoudhury has submitted that the materials on record did not justify the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention in this connection to the evidence of Shri Shome before the Inquiry, Officer wherein he had clearly stated that he had attested the copy of the Matriculation Certificate on 17.1.75 on the basis of the original Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner which he had verified before attestation. Shri Hornchoudhury has submitted that as the original of Matriculation Certificate was lost by the petitioner, all efforts were made to obtain a duplicate copy of the certificate. For this purpose, the petitioner bad approached the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in which body the Dacca Board had merged) through the High .Commissioner of India in Dacca but he was informed that the records regardingthe Matriculation Exami­nation for the year 1949 were not available. A copy of this communi­cation dated 10.1.81 as at Annexure-9. We would, therefore, think that the petitioner had made sincere efforts to procure a duplicate copy of the Matriculation Certificate which effort he would not have made had he really not passed the Matriculation Examination. This communi­cation clearly speaks of innocence of the petitioner. No body having forged a certificate, as is the charge, would have made efforts to procure a duplicate copy of the certificate. 5. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Corporation has, however, relied on a communication which had been received through the High ; Commissioner of India in Dacca as at Annexure- A/18. This communica­tion which is dated June 28, 1978 had emanated from the Government of Bangladesh and has stated that no "Indian National" by the name of Nandalal Gupta had appeared in the Matriculation examination from Maulavi Bazar Centre of Sylhet in 1949. Shri Homchoudhury has contended that the communication dealt with an Indian National and cannot be related to the petitioner who at the relevant time was a Pak National inasmuch as the petitioner had got registered as an Indian National only in the year 1955. Shri Homchoudhury has contended that the communication dealt with an Indian National and cannot be related to the petitioner who at the relevant time was a Pak National inasmuch as the petitioner had got registered as an Indian National only in the year 1955. Shri Barthakur has however, submitted that as the Government of Bangladesh had informed that no student in the name of Nandalal Gupta had appeared in the Matriculation exami­nation from Maulvi Bazar Centre, the same would clearly show that the petitioner, whose name is Nandalal Gupta, had not appeared in that examination. 6. We have duly considered the aforesaid submissions and have applied our mind to the materials on record. We have found some force in the submission of Shri Homchoudhury that the communication which had emanated from the Government of Bangladesh must have concerned an Indian "National named Nandalal Gupta. 'The learned counsel is right in contending that the Government of Bangladesh would not have maintained airy record bf the Pak Nationals appearing in the Matriculation Examination. As in 1949, the petitioner was Pak National it is urged that the records of the Government might not reveal that any person by the name of Nandalal Gupta had appeared in the Matriculation Examination of 1949. The effort made by the petitioner to obtain duplicate copy of the certificate also speaks of his innocence, submits Shri Homchoudhury. The contention of Shri Barthakur that the aforesaid information given by the Bangladesh Government should not be confined to Nandlal Gupta who was an Indian National in 1949 has also force inasmuch as the letter speaks of the fact that no student in the name of Nandlal Gupta had appeared in the examination in question. 7. Keeping in view the entirety of the circumstances, we hold that the present was a case where it could not have been conclusively held that the /petitioner had made a false declaration regarding his having passed the Matriculation Examination while seeking employment under the Corporation We would, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal and order for reinstatement of the petitioner. A On reinstatement, the petitioner may not, however, be paid his arrear salary but other service benefits would be made available to him. We have made this observation because we are ordering for reinstatem­ent not on full exoneration of the petitioner, but giving him benefit of doubt. A On reinstatement, the petitioner may not, however, be paid his arrear salary but other service benefits would be made available to him. We have made this observation because we are ordering for reinstatem­ent not on full exoneration of the petitioner, but giving him benefit of doubt. Order of reinstatement would be passed most expeditiously. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed as aforesaid. The delay in pronouncing the judgment has occurred because after hearing of the case was over, records of the case reached my hands only recently. 9. Before parting, may we state that we have felt happy in being able to dispose of the petition as aforesaid, as the parties themselves at one state had wanted to comprise the matter on the terms mentioned above.