COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 796/2001 Anant Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ……Respondents Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 8th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.04.2000 passed by The Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital i.e. the Respondent No. 3. The main ground of challenge is that the said punishment order has been passed by the Authority who is not competent to pass the order. Under the Rules, Punishing Authority/Disciplinary Authority is the Conservator of Forests who could pass the punishment order but the Divisional Forest Officer who is inferior to that of Conservator of Forest has passed this order. Therefore, there is clear cut violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have perused the impugned order. I find that the said order has been passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. Rule 3 of the Rules known as U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal ) Rules, 1999 provides punishment and Rule 6 provides that the Punishing Authority shall be the Appointing Authority and Rule 12 of U.P. Subordinate Forest (Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Service Rules, 1951 provides that the Appointing Authority for the posts of Rangers, Deputy Rangers and the Foresters shall be the Conservator of Forest. The petitioner admittedly is a Forester. Accordingly, Conservator of Forest is the Appointing Authority in respect of the Petitioner. Thus, the order has been passed by an officer who is inferior in rank to the Punishing Authority/Appointing Authority. Therefore, there is violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 3. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh