JUDGMENT As per direction of this Court, learned Standing Counsel has received instructions. On the basis of instructions, it has been submitted that the State Government has expressed its same stand over the question of the jurisdiction of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as it had been expressed in the case of Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & others; writ petition no.1139 (S/B) of 2015. This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties had disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 22.12.2015. The petitioner holds the post of Forest Range Officer. The service conditions of Forest Range Officer are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department Range Forest Officers Service Rule, 2009. Rule 3(b) defines the 'appointing authority', which is extracted below: "3(b) 'appointing authority' means the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttar Pradesh." 2. In the present case, the charge-sheet impugned has been approved by the Principal Conservator of Forest and not by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The identical controversy was raised in Yogendra Kumar Tiwari's case. In this case also, the order of punishment was passed by the Principal Conservator of Forest. This Court had quashed the order of punishment on the ground that the same was passed by the authority below to the appointing authority. In this case also the Principal Conservator of Forest has exercised his power to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, who is below to the appointing authority. 3. Therefore, we are of the view that in light of the rules quoted above, the same is unsustainable. Under these circumstances, we hereby quash the charge-sheet impugned with liberty to the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner afresh. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.