JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - The Petitioner on the relevant date was a constable. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 26-4-1971 containing allegations of disobedience and absence from duty. He submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet on 15-5-1971. His main contention was that Sri. G.N. Awasthi the then Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, was against him and the charges were levelled against the Petitioner at the behest of Sri. G.N. Awasthi. The inquiry was made and ultimately the impugned order dated 13-4-1972 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) was passed reducing him to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years. The order was then challenged in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police but the appeal failed. The Petitioner then carried the matter to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal where also he could not succeed. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal's order is Annexure No. 3 to the petition. The Petitioner in the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has alleged that the impugned order was passed at the behest of Sri. G.N. Awasthi the then Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, who was actuated by malice against him: hence it is void. It has also been contended that the charge-sheet served on the Petitioner was not framed in accordance with the U.P. Police Regulations and the copies of the documents though applied for were not supplied to the Petitioner thus denying him reasonable opportunity of defence. These points were also urged before the Tribunal but were rejected as without any substance. 2. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal found that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate that the impugned order was mala fide. It is by now well settled that if a person challenges an order on the ground of malice he should allege with sufficient details as to how the authority concerned had acted in a malafide manner and he should also substantiate those allegations. Bald allegation of malice without any cogent evidence in support of it would not be enough to vitiate an order. The tribunal has found as a fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate his allegation of mala fides. In the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. Bald allegation of malice without any cogent evidence in support of it would not be enough to vitiate an order. The tribunal has found as a fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate his allegation of mala fides. In the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, AIR 1974 SC 555 , it has been held that "the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility." In the case in hand such proof was lacking. 3. The other ground on which the order was challenged before me was that the charge-sheet served on the Petitioner was not framed in accordance with the Police Manual. The Petitioner has himself quoted the two charges which were framed against him in paragraph 10 of the petition. I do not find that the two charges levelled against the Petitioner suffer from any vagueness. They were specific and contained all details. 4. It was then said that the Petitioner was not supplied with relevant documents to file his reply. I find no force in this contention. It has been said in the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner was given copies of general diary asked for by him. In the two charges levelled against him a general diary report was only referred to hence the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Petitioner was supplied with the relevant documents. It could not be substantiated by the Petitioner before the Tribunal that he had applied for supply of other documents. That contention, therefore, also fails. 5. Lastly it was submitted that mere concurrence of the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur in the order of punishment passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not enough. The Tribunal had rejected this contention and in my opinion rightly so, in view of the provisions of Para 479(f) of the Police Regulations. 6. No other point was pressed. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.