It is argued that the petitioner challenged the illegal, mala fide and arbitrary order of reversion through an appeal though addressed to the D.I.-G. but routed through the respondent. The grievance is that the respondent illegally and mala fide blocked the appeal and did not forward it to the D.I.-G.
2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the petitioner has a right of appeal and thereafter, he could also maintain a revision and finally appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, therefore, this petition is not competent.
3. The learned counsel while summing up the arguments referred to Para.2 of the comments of the respondent, according to which reversion to substantive rank from an officiating rank is tot punishment, therefore, appeal is not competent.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The admitted position is that the impugned, order was passed by the respondent and he is not appellate Authority, therefore, he could not adjudicate whether appeal against it is competent or not. He was under statutory duty to forward the same to the D.I.-G. to whom appeal of the petitioner was addressed.
5. This type of arbitrary and illegal orders over-burden this Court with unnecessary and fruitless litigation in the form of Constitutional petitions. The senior officers should avoid whimsical and arbitrary orders.
6. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is accepted with Rs,1,000 as costs. The same shall be recovered @ Rs,100 each month from the salary of the respondent by the Accountant- General Office and deposited in the relevant head of the Treasury. The result is that the respondent is directed to forward the appeal of the petitioner to the D.I.-G. before 13th of March, 1999.