Saikia, J.- The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, impugns the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup dated 22.6.76 dismissing him from service, the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Assamg Gauhati dated 26.8.76 upholding the order of dismissal and dismissing his appeal, and the judgment of the Assam Administrative Tribunal dated 22.8.79 rejecting his appeal there from. 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police briefly 'AST', and he joined the Assam Police Training College at Dergaon on 21.8.67 and on completion of Training he was posted at different places. While be was serving at Rangia Police Station, be received an order of the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup dated 1.4.75 placing him under suspension for his alleged unbecoming conduct, pen­ding drawal of the departmental proceedings. Thereafter by notice dated 9.5.75 he was required to show cause under sec­tion 7 of the Police Act, read with Rule 65 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of the India, as to why any of the penalties prescribed in the aforesaid rules should not be inflicted on the charges mentio­ned in the said notice. The petitioner showed cause denying the charges and contending that the disciplinary proceeding was contrary to law and the charges could not be sustained and also that for want of some essential documents he could not submit an effective written statement. However, receiving paper, the petitioner filed another written statement of defence on 15.10.75. At the enquiry the department examined 22, while the delinquent officer examined 6 witnesses. The enquiry Officer in his report dated 6.5.76 held the petitioner guilty of all the charges and the Superintendent of Police, agreeing with the findings, by his notice dated 17.5.76 asked the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action of his dismissal from service. 3. The petitioner showed cause, by his representation dated 29.5.76 contending that the findings were not tenable as the provisions of law were not complied with, and that the evidence did not warrant the finding of guilt. However; the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup rejected his explanation and passed the impugned order dated 22.7.76 dismissing him from service with effect from 21.6.76, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Ins­pector General of Police, Western Range, Assam reiterating his contentions, but his appeal was dismissed. However; the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup rejected his explanation and passed the impugned order dated 22.7.76 dismissing him from service with effect from 21.6.76, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Ins­pector General of Police, Western Range, Assam reiterating his contentions, but his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the peti­tioner moved this court in Civil Rule No. 448 of 1976 and by order dated 11 1.79 his petition was transferred to the Assam Administrative Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 22.8.79 dismissed the appeal hol­ding that he was not entitled to any relief in view of the nature and gravity of the charges brought against him. The tribunal also held that the Superintendent of Police was the appointing authority of the petitioner and the disciplinary pro­ceeding was rightly conducted and the order of dismissal was rightly passed by the Superintendent of Police. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvasses only one argument before us, namely, that the order of dismissal was violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner was dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appoin­ted. According to counsel it was Deputy Inspector General of Police who appointed the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police, who has dismissed him, is lower than the former. 5. Mr. U. Das learned Government Advocate, Assam coun­ters submitting that the petitioner was provisionally appointed by the Principal, Police Training College, Dergaon, and he was confirmed by the Superintendent of Police which clearly shows that there is no violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. Admittedly the Superintendent of Police is not lower than the Principal, Police Training College who is of Superin­tendent's rank. 6. The sole question to be decided, therefore, is whether the petitioner was dismissed by an authority lower than his appointing authority. Rule 16 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-Ill deals with appointment and training of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. Under Sub-Rule (1) thereof appointing authority of Sub-Inspector of Police is Superintendent of Police, Assistant Sub-Inspector, when recruited from outside will be selected by D.I.G. of Police sitting as President of the Selec­tion Board referred to in Rule III-II(X). Rule 16 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-Ill deals with appointment and training of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. Under Sub-Rule (1) thereof appointing authority of Sub-Inspector of Police is Superintendent of Police, Assistant Sub-Inspector, when recruited from outside will be selected by D.I.G. of Police sitting as President of the Selec­tion Board referred to in Rule III-II(X). Annexure-1 to the petition is the Memorandum dated 10th August, 1967 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (P), Assam to the Petitioner saying : “You are hereby informed that you are provisionally selected for appointment as temporary A.S.I, of Police subject to final and satisfactory Police verification report and medical fitness. Please, therefore, report to the Principal, Police Training College, Dergaon on the 21st August, 1967 positively for provisional appointment and training failing which your name will be struck off the list of selected candidates." While it is the petitioner's contention that besides this no other appointment order was received by him, we find in the records an order dated 26.9.67 issued by the Principal, Police Training College, Dergaon to the following effect- "The following out-sides have joined P.T.C. this fore­noon for training for a period of 9 months as temporary ASI of Police vide D.I.G. (P)'s Memo No. F/1/618/Vol. 11/47 dated 10.8.97. They are appointed as Provisionally as A.S.I. of Police from this day forenoon.” (36) Shri Munindra Nath Gogoi-21.8.69. Sd/- Illegible, Principal Police Training College, Dergaon" We also find in the records an order of confirmation of the petitioner's service which says:- "By order of the I.G.P. Assam, Gauhati dated 4.1.75 as conveyed in D.I.G. (A)'s Memo No. F/721/73/81 dated 4.1.75." The following Offg./Temporary ASIs and Oifg. Sis who have been selected for confirmation in the rank of ASI are now confirmed as follows :- (6) ASI Munindra Gogoi, of-Confirmed in the rank Tempry. Kamrup DEF. of ASI with effect from 1.5.74. against a existing permanent vacancy of S.B. Assam. This refers S.P.S.B., Assam, Gauhati Memo No. SB (R) 23 (57)/75/98/1455-67 dated 14 3.75 D.O. No. 341 dated 3.3.75 Sd Illegible Superintendent of Police Kamrup, Gauhati." 7. From the above two orders of provisional appointment and confirmation respectively, we entertain no doubt that the petitioner was appointed by the Principal, Police Training College, Dergaon, where after he underwent training and was subsequently confirmed in his post. From the above two orders of provisional appointment and confirmation respectively, we entertain no doubt that the petitioner was appointed by the Principal, Police Training College, Dergaon, where after he underwent training and was subsequently confirmed in his post. This being the factual position the sub­mission that the dismissing authority was lower than the appointing authority cannot be accepted. 8 No other ground has been urged in this petition. In the result, this petition is found to be merit less, and is dismi­ssed. The rule is discharged. We however, make no order as to costs.