Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23046 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4425 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest. Deptt. Lko And 3others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition." Sri Rishabh Tripathi has drawn attention of this Court to the annexure no. 4, which is Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Surcharge Rules, 1992 showing Rule 5 which provides that a member or any employee aggrieved with an order of surcharge passed by the Managing Director may appeal to the Secretary within thirty days from the date on which such order is communicated to him and the Secretary may confirm, rescind or vary the order passed by the Managing Director and may pass such order as he thinks fit. Further attention has been drawn towards Rule 6 which categorically provides that when an appeal has been preferred against the order of surcharge all proceedings for recovery of the surcharge from the person who has preferred the appeal shall be stayed until the appeal has been finally decided. On that Sri Alok Singh has submitted that the impugned order of surcharge could have been issued in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules which provides power to the Government to call for explanation. As per Sri Singh Rule 4 provides that if any explanation is called from the employee by the Managing Director through Government, the competent authority shall decide the same as per procedure prescribed under Rule 4. Shri Singh has stated that in the present case, the Managing Director has not called explanation from the petitioner through Government, therefore, the impugned order is voility of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Replying to the contention, Sri Rishabh Tripathi has submitted that Rule 3 has provided the authority of the State Government in first proviso wherein it has been indicated that in case the issue of any employee is concerned, the explanation may be called through Managing Director, and in the present case, the explanation has been called by the Managing Director, therefore, the Managing Director would be the competent authority to call the explanation in case of the petitioner who is retired from the post of Divisional Logging Manager. Be that as it may, since there is a provision of an appeal challenging the order of surcharge, therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of Rule 5 within a period of 15 days from today, taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him before the authority, and if such appeal is filed within the aforesaid stipulated time, the same may be disposed of strictly in accordance with law on merits by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with expedition. Since, Rule 6 provides that till final decision is taken by the authority, all proceedings for recovery of surcharge from the person who preferred an appeal shall be stayed, so the impugned order may not be executed till pendency of such appeal. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench