JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J. The petitioner Shri Ram Kapri, who was a Panchayat Sewak in the Keri Panchyat under Bausi Circle in the district of Bhagalpur, has been dismissed from Government service by the order of the Collector, Bhagalpur dated 28.5.1987 contained in Annexure-5 to this petition, after holding a departmental enquiry. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that by a charge sheet dated 25.7.1979 issued under the signature of the Collector Bhagalpur, he has been charge-sheeted for committing fraud and forgery which showed his corrupt conduct. Two other persons were also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner. It has been alleged in the charge-sheet that while the petitioner was posted in the Keri Panchayat, he along with other two persons on 30.3.1974 received four Parwana and Kabuliat from Shri Baleshwar Mahto and Shri Puran Panjyara of village Dumardhari. In those Kabuliat and Parwana, names of four persons along with those of Bhri Baleshwar Mahto and Shri Puran Panjyara were mentioned in respect to land settlement. In the said charge sheet it bas been stated that the petitioner did not see that the parwana neither contained the name of Deputy Collector nor of the Sub-divisional Officer. The copy of which was sent to the petitioner was also not signed by the Circle Officer and did not contain any memo number or date. It has been further stated in the charge sheet that inspite of the defects, the petitioner issued a rent receipt and opened the jamabandi in the name of the aforesaid Rayait after receiving illegal gratification. A copy of the charge sheet is appended as Annexure-1 to this writ application. 3. Sri M.M.P. Verma, Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur was appointed Enquiring Officer and an order was passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur to hold a departmental enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 30.7.1986 contained in Annexure-2. 4. A second show cause was served upon the petitioner by a communication from the Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur dated 10.4.1986 wherein it was informed that the Collector by an order passed on 29.9.1986 and after going through the enquiry report, has provisionally decided to dismiss the petitioner from service for the alleged charges. The petitioner submitted his second show cause on 6.12.1986 a copy whereof is appended as Annexure-4 to this petition. The petitioner submitted his second show cause on 6.12.1986 a copy whereof is appended as Annexure-4 to this petition. The Collector by an order dated 20th May, 1987 after considering the reply to second show cause dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect vide Annexure-5 to this writ application. 5. The petitioner has moved this court for quashing the order of dismissal passed by the Collector dated 4.6.1987. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Collector is bad in law as well as in the facts of the case. The learned Collector ought to have based his order on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiring Officer by which he bad exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. It has been further stated that if the learned Collector differed with the enquiry report, he should have assigned reasons for differing with the same. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the bare perusal of the order of dismissal will show the non-application of mind of the Collector as in the report it has been stated that the enquiring officer had found all the allegations as correct and proved whereas on the other hand, a bare perusal of the enquiry report will go to show that the enquiring officer had reported that as none of the charges against the petitioner has been substantiated as such he should be exonerated. In this regard, he has placed reliance on two judgments of the apex court reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 567 and AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1827 respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has contended that it is not required for the appointing authority to agree with the report of the Enquiring Officer. He is at liberty to examine the matter at length himself and after examining relevant records he may pass the necessary orders. He has stated that the appointing authority that is Collector, Bhagalpur after examining the relevant record had found the petitioner guilty of issuing rent receipts on the basis of improper Parwana. He is at liberty to examine the matter at length himself and after examining relevant records he may pass the necessary orders. He has stated that the appointing authority that is Collector, Bhagalpur after examining the relevant record had found the petitioner guilty of issuing rent receipts on the basis of improper Parwana. The Collector, by an order dated 8.9.1986 had asked the petitioner to submit his second show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and in the aforesaid order, his assigned reasons for coming to the conclusion that prima facie the charge against the petitioner had been substantiated a copy of the order of the Collector dated 8.9.1986 is appended as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the State, has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R 1964 Supreme Court 364, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1130, and 1989 Labour and Industrial Cases 142 (NOC) 8 It has been well settled that the proper authority to propose punishment is the punishing authority and not the enquiring officer. Proposal of the enquiring officer is not binding upon the punishing authority. In this regard, reference can be made about the observation of S.R. Das, Chief Justice in the case of Khem Chand reported in AIR 1958 Supreme Court 300, Summarising his conclusions learned Chief Justice had observed, inter alia, that the second opportunity which a public servant is entitled can be effective only if" the competent authority after the enquiry is over and after applying its mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charge proved against the Government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicate the same to the Government servant." It is obvious that when the learned Chief Justice has referred to the charge proved against the Government servant it is not intended to suggest that the findings made by the enquiring officer in that behalf are final. The enquiry report along with the evidence recorded constitute the material on which the Government has ultimately to act. That is the only purpose of the enquiry held by the competent officer and the report which he makes as a result of the said enquiry. 9. The object of the enquiry is plain. The enquiry report along with the evidence recorded constitute the material on which the Government has ultimately to act. That is the only purpose of the enquiry held by the competent officer and the report which he makes as a result of the said enquiry. 9. The object of the enquiry is plain. It is to enable the appointing authority to hold an investigation into charges framed against the delinquent public servant, so that the appointing authority can in due course consider the evidence adduced and decide whether the said charges are proved or not. The inter position of the enquiry which is held by a duly appointed enquiring officer does not alter the two legal positions that the charges are framed by the appointing authority and it is the appointing authority who is empowered to impose punishment on the delinquent public servant. Thus there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the enquiring officer is binding upon the appointing authority and the District Magistrate; Bhagalpur had no option but to accept the same. After receipt of the enquiry report and perusing the evidence recorded, the Collector, Bhagalpur was free to come to his own conclusions for which a second show cause has already been asked from the petitioner. After considering the second show cause, the Collector Bhagalpur after finding it unsatisfactory, was competent to pass the order of dismissal as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 10. In the result this writ application fails as no plausible ground has been shown to interfere with the order dated 28.5.1987 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur vide Annexure-5. 11. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.