S.S. Chauhan, J.:- This petition has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and the summoning order dated 2-6-2000 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow, contained in Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the petition. The facts, in brief, are that the pe­titioner by virtue of being posted as Range Officer from November, 1991 to June, 1994 in the City Range of Avadh Forest Division, Lucknow was charged for certain irregularities in regard to payment being made to the daily wa­gers. In view of the aforesaid allegations an F.I.R. was lodged against the peti­tioner at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 8-9-2006. Thereafter inves­tigation proceeded in the matter and a charge-sheet was filed. The muster roll concerning the attendance, work and payment etc. was prepared by the Forest Guard and the Forester and the peti­tioner was having no responsibility in regard to the same being Range Officer. The verification and identification was also to be made by the Forest Guard and the Forester. Even according to the Fi­nancial Hand Book Volume-Ill, Rule 125 the preparation of the muster roll has to be done by the subordinate employees. The allegations against the petitioner was that while being posted from 10-11-1991 to 30.6.1994 as Forest Range Offi­cer, City Range of Avadh Forest Divi­sion, Lucknow payment was made to seven persons including one Shiv Murti as daily wagers amounting to Rs. 11,350, whereas the said Shiv Murti is alleged to have not worked in the months of April, May and June, 1993 and payment was made to him. Apart from it, seven daily wagers were also shown to have been distributed the food grains. The food grains and the wages were not paid to these workers and their signatures and thumb impressions were alleged to be forged. On the aforesaid allegations, investigation proceeded and ultimately in the investigation it was found that the allegations made against the petitioner were not substantiated and only in re­spect of Smt. Kamla and Tara Shanker an amount of Rs. 2235 was not paid and in respect of other daily wagers it was found hat payment has been made. Af­ter investigation sanction was sought from the appointing authority to prose­cute the petitioner as contemplated un­der various sections. 2235 was not paid and in respect of other daily wagers it was found hat payment has been made. Af­ter investigation sanction was sought from the appointing authority to prose­cute the petitioner as contemplated un­der various sections. The competent au­thority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide order dated 31.12.1998 re­fused to accord sanction after going through the evidence on record as the Foresters i?:1eep Singh Kanwal and Pi-yush Mohan Srivastava have identified the signatures and thumb impressions of the said labourers and so it was found that it was the responsibility of the said persons and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and the sanction was re­fused. In respect of Foresters Dileep Singh Kanwal and Piyush Mohan Srivastava it was found that the ap­pointing authority of these persons was Conservator of Forest and hence the matter was referred to the Conservator, of Forest for according of sanction. The aforesaid order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was forwarded to the Government and the Principal Secre­tary in the Government on 1.1.1999 overruled the decision taken by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by unreasoned order by simply saying that he was not agreeable with the said order and opined that the action was required to be taken against the petitioner. Alter passing of the said order, another letter was written by the Principal Chief Con­servator of Forest on 26.6.1999 that in case the Government was not satisfied with the recommendation, then he may be informed accordingly so that the pro­ceedings may be initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was processed in the State Government and the State Government on 28.4.2000 re­ferred the matter to the Chief Con­servator of Forest, who proceeded to ac­cord sanction in respect of the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.2000 assuming himself to be the appointing authority of the petitioner. After grant of sanc­tion, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and by virtue of the or­der dated 2.6.2000 the petitioner was summoned to face the trial. Hence this petition. 2. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority of the petitioner at the rele­vant time was Principal Chief Conserva­tor of Forest and he continued to be as such even thereafter. Hence this petition. 2. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority of the petitioner at the rele­vant time was Principal Chief Conserva­tor of Forest and he continued to be as such even thereafter. The power to ac­cord sanction was vested in the Princi­pal Chief Conservator of Forest and in respect of Forester and the Forest Guard the matter was referred to the Conserva­tor of Forest, who was the appointing authority of the said persons. It is sub­mitted that the State Government com­mitted manifest error of law in review­ing the order dated 31.12.1998 as there is no provision as contemplated under rules forgetting any approval from the Government when the appointing au­thority of the petitioner happens to be the Principal Chief Conservator of For­est. The State Government taking the shelter of the Government Order dated 6.6.1989 assuming that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Chief Conservator of Forest and hence the power was vested in him to grant sanc­tion committed manifest error. The said Government Order dated 6.6.1989 has been superseded by means of the Gov­ernment Order dated 8.6.1990 in which a cut off date has been given as 1.1.1990, therefore, the Government order dated 6.6.1989 stood superseded and was not in existence and hence the reliance was placed wrongly to assume that the ap­pointing authority of the petitioner was the Chief Conservator of Forest. The power was; never vested with the said authority ancfi, therefore, the sanction order passed fry the Chief Conservator of Forest was wholly illegal and without authority of law. The power of review was also not vested with the Chief Con­servator of Forest over and above the order of the appointing authority, who proceeded to take a decision that there was no prosecutable evidence available against the petitioner and thereby re­fused to accord sanction. The Principal Secretary by an unreasoned order and without assigning any reason only rely­ing on the basis of recommendation of the vigilance department has illegally proceeded to order for prosecuting the petitioner. The power vested in a par­ticular authority has to be exercised as contemplated under the rules and in accordance with the procedure pro­vided therein and no other authority is competent to take a decision otherwise. The power vested in a par­ticular authority has to be exercised as contemplated under the rules and in accordance with the procedure pro­vided therein and no other authority is competent to take a decision otherwise. The petitioner was only acting in super­visory capacity and he has never veri­fied or identified the signatures of the labourers and the criminal liability is an individual liability and it cannot be ex­tended to vicarious liability. The ap­pointing authority of the petitioner be­ing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the whole exercise taken against the petitioner is illegal and without au­thority of law. 3. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner as contem­plated under the Government Order dated 6.6.1989 was the Chief Conserva­tor of Forest and hence the sanction ac­corded by the Chief Conservator of Forest was in accordance with law. The pe­titioner has indulged into bungling and the payment was not made to two per­sons and embezzlement of Rs. 2235 was found to be established against the peti­tioner as the said amount was never paid to the said persons, hence no ille­gality has been committed in granting sanction against the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner, who was posted as Range Officer from November, 1991 to June, 1994 in the City Range of Avadh Forest Division, Lucknow was pro­ceeded to face some allegations in re­spect of certain payments being made under his supervision and control. In respect of the said allegations an F.I.R. was lodged on 8-9- 2006 at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation proceeded and in the investigalion it was found that the allegations made in the F.I.R. were base­less and were not found to be estab­lished apart from the allegations in re­spect of Rs. 2235 which, as alleged, was not found to be paid to the persons con­cerned. 6. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation proceeded and in the investigalion it was found that the allegations made in the F.I.R. were base­less and were not found to be estab­lished apart from the allegations in re­spect of Rs. 2235 which, as alleged, was not found to be paid to the persons con­cerned. 6. The vigilance department sought permission to prosecute the petitioner from the appointing authority i.e. Prin­cipal Chief Conservator of Forest, who refused to accord sanction in respect of the petitioner after considering that there was no evidence available against him and he also found that in Volume 7, Para 126 of the Financial Hand Book that in the Forest Department the job of filling of muster roll was of the Forester and the Forest Guard and the verifica­tion was also being made by the said persons at the time of payment. The person, who has identified the signature and identity of the said labourers has to be held responsible for the same and in case there was no identification of the signatures and identification of person, then only the Range Officer can be held responsible and so he refused to accord sanction. The file thereafter was for­warded to the State Government and the Principal Secretary in the State Gov­ernment by one line order and without assigning any reason proceeded to grant approval for prosecution of the peti­tioner. In the meantime, another letter was written by the appointing authority on 26.6.1999 that in case the State Gov­ernment was not agreeable, then he may be informed accordingly so that he may proceed in accordance with law to grant sanction. It appears that the said file re­mained with the State Government and ultimately on 28.4.2000 sanction was granted by the Chief Conservator of Forest assuming himself to be the appointing authority of the petitioner. 7. The question which falls for consideration is as to who is the ap­pointing authority of the petitioner and whether any power was vested with the State Government to sit over the order of the appointing authority while refusing to accord sanction. The ap­pointing authority is defined under Rule 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Forest (Rangers', Deputy Rangers' and For­esters') Service Rules, 1951 that the Chief Conservator of Forest shall be the appointing authority of the Rangers. The appointing authority of the peti­tioner, therefore, has to be presumed to be the Chief Conservator of Forest. The ap­pointing authority is defined under Rule 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Forest (Rangers', Deputy Rangers' and For­esters') Service Rules, 1951 that the Chief Conservator of Forest shall be the appointing authority of the Rangers. The appointing authority of the peti­tioner, therefore, has to be presumed to be the Chief Conservator of Forest. A Government Order was issued on 24.10.1983 wherein the nomenclature of the Chief Conservator of Forest was changed and it was termed as 'Principal Chief Conservator of Forest'. The said nomenclature continued upto 6.6.1989. In the Government Order dated 6.6.1989 certain change was brought in provid­ing therein that the appointing authority of the Ranger shall be Chief Conservator of Forest and deriving power from the said Government Order the Chief Con­servator of Forest proceeded to accord sanction in respect of the petitioner. Government Order dated 6.6.1989 stood superseded by means of Government Order dated 8.6.1990 in which a cut off date has been given as 1.1.1990 and it was provided that all those executive orders, which have been issued prior to 1.1.1990 shall stand cancelled. The Prin­cipal Chief Conservator of Forest by means of letter dated 3.6.1992 again provided that in accordance with notification, the power of suspension was being delegated to the Chief Conserva­tor of Forest and except-this no other power was delegated to him. The con­tention of the petitioner is that after 1993 the appointing authority of the peti­tioner shall be the Principal Chief Con­servator of Forest by virtue of the Gov­ernment Order dated 8.6.1990 and the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 3.6.1992. Even under the new Rules known as The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department Range Forest Offi­cers' Service Rules, 2009' the appointing authority of the Ranger has been de­fined as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 also provides that the appointing authority of a person shall be the au­thority, who is entitled to make ap­pointments under the relevant service rules. The Chief Conservator of Forest, therefore, was having no authority to grant sanction in respect of the peti­tioner. 8. The Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 also provides that the appointing authority of a person shall be the au­thority, who is entitled to make ap­pointments under the relevant service rules. The Chief Conservator of Forest, therefore, was having no authority to grant sanction in respect of the peti­tioner. 8. So far the question of review as contemplated under Article 162 by the Government is concerned, the Principal Secretary while exercising power acted beyond his authority vested in him and no power of review was provided under Rules or under Government Order or moreover nothing was pointed out by the Principal Secretary in respect of the refusal of sanction by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and by one line order it was said that he does not agree with the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and he accords permission for prosecution of the peti­tioner. The said order was without au­thority of law and unreasoned and without application of mind. Even oth­erwise the matter ought to have gone to the appointing authority after order of the Principal Secretary, but the matter never went to the appointing authority, but it was referred to an authority infe­rior to the appointing authority i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest, who pro­ceeded to accord sanction. In the opin­ion of the Court, such action on behalf of the Government was wholly illegal and, therefore, the sanction granted by an authority inferior to the appointing authority of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 9. The reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioner on the case of State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, decided on 9th December, 2010 also lays down the same principle of law that if once sanction was granted on the basis of material placed before the appointing authority and it was refused, then re­viewing the said order was not permis­sible unless there was any fresh material to the contrary. In para 14 of the said judgment it was held as under: "(14) By way of foot-note, we may observe that the investigating agency might have had legitimate grievance about the order dated November 27, 2007 refusing to grant sanction, and if that were so and no fresh materials were necessary, it ought to have chal­lenged the order of the sanctioning authority but that was riot done. The power of the sanctioning authority being nor of continuing character could have been exercised only once on the same materials." 10. Identical question arose before the Apex Court again in the case of State of Punjab and another, v. Mohammad Iqbal Bhatti, 2009 (17) SCC 92 = 2009 (67) ACC 350 (SC) = 2009(82) AIC 114 and in the said case the question involved was as to whether the State has any power to review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was found that there was no fresh ma­terial before the sanctioning authority to review the order. In paragraph 22 of the said case it was held as under: "(22) It was, therefore, not a case where fresh materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. No case, therefore, was made out that the sanctioning authority had failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration as irrelevant fact. If the clarification sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had been supplied, as has been con­tended before us, the same should have formed a ground for reconsid­eration of the order. It is stated be­fore us that the Government sent nine letters for obtaining the clarifi­cations which were not replied to." 11. While dealing with the afore­said proposition, the Apex Court placed reliance upon the judgment reported in the case of Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana, 2006 (54) ACC 850 (SC). 12. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Government Orders issued from time to time, it is clear that the appointing authority of the petitioner happens to be the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and he re­fused to accord sanction in respect of the prosecution of the petitioner. Therefore, the Chief Conservator of Forest, an au­thority being inferior to the appointing authority, was not competent to review the aforesaid order and neither on the reasoning given hereinabove the order passed by the Chief Conservator of For­est was also in accordance with law. Therefore, the sanction granted by the Chief Conservator of Forest, an author­ity inferior to the appointing authority of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 13. Therefore, the sanction granted by the Chief Conservator of Forest, an author­ity inferior to the appointing authority of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 13. In the result, the petition is al­lowed and the charge-sheet and the summoning order dated 2.6.2000 passed in pursuance to the sanction granted by the Chief Conservator of Forest is hereby quashed. Petition Allowed.