V.K. Gupta, C.J.

1. A very clear and categorical as well as an unequivocal and unambiguous provision of law has unnecessarily been made the subject matter of the controversy in this petition challenging an innocuous order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. On 9th June, 2006 the Tribunal while calling for replies from the respondents had directed that if the reply was not filed, it would consider the issue of grant of interim direction. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

2. We see no reason as to why this Court should interfere in the aforesaid order especially when the State Government while invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Rule 29 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service should not be imposed against him. We have seen Rule 29 (supra) and very firmly feel that the State Government in this case has the revisional power and jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order confirming, modifying or setting aside the order passed by the lower authority as well as pass an order for enha