MEHROTRA, C. J. : The petitioner Sri Keshab Chandra Sarma was appointed an Assistant in the Lowes Division grade in the Assam Secretariat in 1948. On the 3rd December 1949 he was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Taxes in which he was confirmed on the 3rd December 1951. In the year 1953 he was promoted to the permanent cadre of the Inspector of Taxes. Proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and he was asked to show cause on or before the 30th January, 1957 why he should not be dismiss­ed from service or otherwise punished. The petitioner submitted his explanation and after inquiry the inquiring officer found the petitioner innocent of the charges and submitted his report to the Government on the 25th March 1957. On the 21st July 1958 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department returned the papers to the inquiring officer for further inquiry on certain specified points mention­ed in his letter. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter the inquiring officer called upon the peti­tioner to appear before him on the 20th August 1958 and produce his documentary evidence if my. The inquiring officer in the second inquiry found that his assets were not in proportion to the known sources of the income of the petitioner. The Gov­ernment served on the petitioner a notice under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution on the 31st December 1959 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The peti­tioner submitted his explanation and the Government accepted the report of the inquiring officer and passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service on the 30th March 1961. The order of dismissal has been challenged by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion. (2) Mainly the contention of the petitioner is that he was not given any reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges. It is further urged that the second inquiry was initiated at the instance of the Deputy Secretary to the Govern­ment of Assam, Finance Department and he had virtually expressed his opinion in the letter by which the matter was sent back to the inquiring officer for further inquiry. It is further urged that the second inquiry was initiated at the instance of the Deputy Secretary to the Govern­ment of Assam, Finance Department and he had virtually expressed his opinion in the letter by which the matter was sent back to the inquiring officer for further inquiry. The finding of the in­quiring officer is not thus his own finding, it is further contended that on proved facts rule 11 (d) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1937 has not been properly interpreted by the inquiring officer and the necessary finding from which any presumption can be drawn against the petitioner has not been given, by the inquiring officer. It is further contended that the order of dismissal is mala fide. The inquiring officer is biased. (3) Before I take up the points raised by the petitioner about the merits of the findings, it is convenient to dispose of the objection raised by the petitioner that the second inquiry was initiated by the Deputy Secretary and thus it was illegal. Under Article 310 of the Constitution the tenure of an employee is at the pleasure of the Governor. The pleasure is only restricted by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The order of dismissal passed by the Government can only be set aside on the ground that the provisions of Article 311 (2) have been violated. When the Govt. passes an order of dismissal, it discharges an ad­ministrative function and it is open to the Govern­ment to have the inquiry made by another officer. The law has been laid down thus on this point in the case of 'Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court', (1955) 2 SCR 1331 at p. 1345 : ((S) AIR 1956 SC 285 at p. 291) : "But the exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is the exercise not of a judicial power but of an administrative power. It is none­theless so, by reason of the fact that an opportu­nity to show cause and an enquiry simulating judi­cial standards have to precede the exercise thereof. It is well-recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a res­ponsible and competent official to enquire and re­port. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. It is well-recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a res­ponsible and competent official to enquire and re­port. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be dele­gated except where the law specifically so pro­vides - is the ultimate responsibility for the exer­cise of such a power. As pointed out by the House of Lords in Board of Education v. Rice, (1911) AC 179 at p. 182, a functionary who has to decide an administrative matter, of the nature in­volved in this case, can, obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasi­ble and convenient, provided only the affected party "has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and prejudical material'." It was thus open to the Government to collect the materials in such manner as it liked. When the first inquiry was entrusted to the inquiring officer, he submitted his report and it is open to the Gov­ernment to refuse to accept the report and send back the matter to the inquiring officer for making further inquiry into the matter. Unless it can be shown by the petitioner that he had not been given a fair opportunity to show cause against the pro­posed charges when the matter was sent for inquiry again, the tact that the matter was sent back by the dismissing authority, namely the Government, to the inquiring officer for further inquiry, will not vitiate the proceedings and the consequent order of dismissal. (4) The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes framed the following charges against the petitioner: 1. That being in employment in this Department since 3rd December, 1949, you have been found in possession of pecuniary resources or pro­perties (according to statement of allegation attach­ed) disproportionate to your known sources of in­come and that it is presumed under Rule 11 (d) of the Assam Government Conduct Rules, 1937 that you have acquired the same by dishonest means and thus you have shown that you are unfit to hold any job under Government. 2. That you have given a false statement of assets in respect of one item viz. Serial 1 of A (l) in the Declaration Form dated 19th June 1956. 2. That you have given a false statement of assets in respect of one item viz. Serial 1 of A (l) in the Declaration Form dated 19th June 1956. Along with the charges the statement of allegations against the petitioner was also set out and the pro­perties which were in his possession are set out in the said statement of allegation. When the inquiring officer was asked to make fresh inquiry and submit his report, he sent another letter to the peti­tioner On the 4th August 1958 calling upon the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in sup­port of the following : "I. That your uncle Shri RadRanath Sarma . stated to me that he raised the loan of Rs. 12,500/-from other persons in order to lend the same to you for purchasing the plot of land from Shri J. N Bhuyan. Please produce documentary or other in­dependent evidence to show that your uncle raised the said loan from other persons. 2. That your reply dated 30th January 1957 to the charges framed against you, you stated that you saved a sum of Rs. 2.530/- before joining the Taxation Department. Please show where these savings were kept and why they were not deposited in the Postal Savings Bank Account or other Banks. Please also state when the National Savings Certi­ficate worth Rs. 1000/- was purchased. 3. That in your statement before me you have stated that you purchased the plot of land: from Shri Mahesh Ch. Sarma at Rs. 1,500/- by taking a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from one Shri Ramesh Ch. Sarma and you repaid the same. Please pro­duce evidence to show that you took the said loan from him and also state whether he is related to you or in any way interested in you. 4. That in your statement before me you have stated you purchased the plot of land from Shri L. K. Da;i for Rs. 700/- and paid the balance of Rs. 500/- for the plot of land from Shri Mahesh Ch. Sarma out of your savings. Please produce evidence to show that you have such savings after meeting all expenses of your two establishments." By this letter the petitioner was further called upon to produce all other documentary and other evidence in support of his reply to the charges framed against him. Sarma out of your savings. Please produce evidence to show that you have such savings after meeting all expenses of your two establishments." By this letter the petitioner was further called upon to produce all other documentary and other evidence in support of his reply to the charges framed against him. In response to the above letter the petitioner submitted his explanation and also his evidence. On the 5th January 1959 the inquiring officer sent a letter to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam incorporating the report of his inquiry. It will appear from the perusal of the report that the petitioner was examined by him. He also examined witnesses and produced documents. Shri Mohan Ch. Patgiri and Shyam Charan Talukdar were exa­mined on behalf of the petitioner. (5) There is no allegation in the petition that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to produce his oral and documentary evidence, nor is there any allegation that the witnesses were not examined in his presence and that he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the department. In the case of 'Khern Chand v. Union of India. AIR 1958 SO 300, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have summarised the con­tents of a reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in the following terms : "The reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes : (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and esta­blish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence, and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be in­flicted on him, which he can only do if the compe­tent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punish­ments and communicates the same to the Govern­ment servant. The petitioner was supplied with copy of the char­ges, his attention was also drawn to the circum­stances against him and he was given ample oppor­tunity to disprove those allegations. The petitioner was supplied with copy of the char­ges, his attention was also drawn to the circum­stances against him and he was given ample oppor­tunity to disprove those allegations. He was given opportunity to produce evidence and to cross-exa­mine witnesses. There was thus no denial of reason­able opportunity to him as envisaged under Art. 311 of the Constitution. (6) Rule 11 (d) of the Assam Government Servants Conduct Rules runs as follows: "If any Government servant or any other person on his behalf is found in possession of pecu­niary resources or property which appear to the Government to be disproportionate to his known sources of income the Government shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the Government, servant acquired such property by dishonest means and the Government shall take such action against the Government servant concerned as it deems ne­cessary." This rule was framed in the exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. It only lays down that if the Government is of opinion that the property in possession of a Government servant is disproportionate to his known source of income, the Government is to presume that the property was acquired by dishonest means. This is a rebuttable presumption and it only gives power to the Government to take necessary action against the Government servant. After the Government has formed an opinion that the property in possession of the Government servant is disproportionate to his known source of income, the Government may take action to punish the Government servant. In that case if the disci­plinary proceeding is started against the Govern­ment servant, the mandatory provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution are to be followed. It is net for this court to examine the evidence and come to its own conclusion whether the opinion of the Gov­ernment that tile property in possession of the Gov­ernment servant is disproportionate to his known source of income is incorrect. Nor is it open to this court to sit as a court of appeal against the decision of the inquiring officer and decide whether the Government servant has succeeded in explain­ing the source by which he has acquired the pro­perty and to examine if the petitioner has or has not succeeded in rebutting the initial presump­tion again, him. (7) The petitioner had land and building valued at Rs. 14,200 at Gauhati town. He had five life assurance policies amounting to Rs. (7) The petitioner had land and building valued at Rs. 14,200 at Gauhati town. He had five life assurance policies amounting to Rs. 20,500, the annual premium of which is Rs. 750/12/-. In the year 1954 he purchased National Savings Certi­ficates for Rs. 1,000/-. He had a festal Savings Bank deposit of Rs. 542 and a sum of Rs. 371 de­posited in the Savings Bank Accounts of Assam Co­operative Apex Bank up to 19-6-56. He had on the date when the proceedings were drawn up a sum of Rs. 826 accumulated in G. P. Fund up to 31-5-56. He had a radio set valued at Rs. 475/-and furniture valued at Rs. 300. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 215 per mensem, out of which Rs. 25 were deducted as his contribution towards the G. P. Fund, Rs. 62/97- as his insurance premium and Rs. 20/- as house rent. After deducting these ex­penses he had a net income of Rs. 107/7/- from his salary. He had two establishments - one at Dhubri and the other at Gauhati. In his statement of the assets he had stated that he had inherited landed property worth Rs. 5,500 in village Rahadla. All this statement will show that it cannot be said that prima facie the Government opinion that his assets were disproportionate to his known source of income was perverse. After the Government had formed such an opinion) the Government decided to take action against the petitioner and he was given every opportunity during the trial to rebut the presumption and to prove that these assets were acquired from a known source of income. (8) Dr. Medhi has endeavoured to show that the finding arrived at by the inquiring officer (hat the petitioner did not acquire all his properties by lawful means and that he has been found in pos­session of pecuniary resources and properties dis­proportionate to his income is not borne out by the materials on the record. In effect the finding of the inquiring officer is that he has not succeeded in proving that he purchased the National Savings Certificates worth Rs. 1,000/- and paid the price of land amounting to Rs. 700/- to Shri L. K. Das and the balance of Rs. 500/- to Shri M. C. Sarma by some known source of income. In effect the finding of the inquiring officer is that he has not succeeded in proving that he purchased the National Savings Certificates worth Rs. 1,000/- and paid the price of land amounting to Rs. 700/- to Shri L. K. Das and the balance of Rs. 500/- to Shri M. C. Sarma by some known source of income. If the Government servant is unable to explain the source of the money with which he has acquired certain proper.y, it may be open to the employer to terminate the services of his employee. The tenure of service is at the pleasure of the Governor and the pleasure as I have already indi­cated is only controlled by Article 311 of the Con­stitution. So long as the dismissal has not been ordered by an authority inferior to the appointing authority and the petitioner has been given reason­able opportunity to disprove the charges, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal is illegal. It may be that the amount in respect of which the peti­tioner has failed to establish that it was not dis­proportionate .to his known source of income is small, but this court does not sit as a court of ap­peal against the order of the inquiring officer and cannot substitute its own judgment to that of the inquiring officer. The petitioner has made a grievance of the fact that the inquiring officer has relied upon the information supplied to him by the heads of the institutions where the petitioner had worked prior to his appointment in the Government service without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the heads of the institutions who have supplied the said information. In his written statement the peti­tioner has given out the names of the places where he had served before his joining the Taxation De­partment and he has set out the remuneration he received therein. No evidence however was led by him to prove this fact and the inquiring officer in order to verify the correctness of this statement made inquiries from the heads of the departments where the petitioner had worked. In the second notice issued by the Government on the 31st Decem­ber 1959 it was specifically mentioned that the peti­tioner has stated that the petitioner had a total income of Rs. 4378/- from his employment in other institutions prior to his joining the Taxation Depart­ment. In the second notice issued by the Government on the 31st Decem­ber 1959 it was specifically mentioned that the peti­tioner has stated that the petitioner had a total income of Rs. 4378/- from his employment in other institutions prior to his joining the Taxation Depart­ment. But this statement is belied by the reports obtained from two of his previous employers. The reports were already on the record and the peti­tioner never objected to the reports in his reply to the second notice, nor he ever expressed a desire that the employers who had given this report should be called to give him an opportunity to cross-examine. (9) The last point urged is that the inquiring officer was biased. It is difficult to appreciate this line of argument. This argument has been fully considered by this court in the case of Haragovind Sarma v. S. C. Kagti, AIR 1960 Assam 141. In the result therefore, there is no force in this petition and it is rejected with cost which we assess at Rs. 50/-. (10) S. K. DUTTA, J. : I agree. IE/M.F. Petition dismissed.