D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted for being absent from duty between 10 p.m. to 11.30 p. in. on 21-8-1987. The charge was investigated and found fully established, and eventually it resulted in dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenges the dismissal order as well as the proceeding relating thereto.
(2.) The finding with regard to the establishment of the charge has not been demonstrated to be vitiated on account of any legal infirmity. The impugned order is not open to challenge on that score.
(3.) The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry proceedings were invalid because of being conducted by an officer subordinate to and under the influence of the punishing authority, namely, Supdt. of Police, who was biased against the petitioner. In this context the learned counsel seeks to challenge the vires of Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 479 of the U.P. Police Regulations which purports to authorise certain police officers to exercise all powers of a superintend at of police including the power to hold and conduct a departmental enquiry not with standing the fact of their being junior to the punishing appointing authority. The contention of the learned counsel is that the aforesaid sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 479 is ultra vires of Section 7 of the Police Act, paragraph 490(13) of the U.P. Police Regulations and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it authorises certain junior police officers to exercise all powers of a Superintendent of Police, including the power to hold a departmental enquiry, and such officers, being under subordination, may not hold an impartial enquiry. We have carefully ex mined the submission of the learned counsel and are of the opinion that it has absolutely no force. If in given case the enquiry is shown and found not to be impartial the same would always be open to challenge on the ground of bias. In the instant case no such bias is discern able.;