Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri K.M. Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.

2. When this writ petition was filed in the year 2000 learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that availability of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and this Court had, therefore, entertained the writ petition and recorded that if the principles of natural justice have been violated and proper procedure has not been followed, then writ petition can be entertained as also for consideration as to whether the dismissal is highly disproportionate to the misconduct even if it be taken to have been established against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed after holding of an enquiry. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he had raised a question of bias against the Sub Divisional Officer who had initiated