D. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of sabhahit, J. , allowing W. P No. 19320 of 1979. The Karnataka State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and the Chief Traffic Manager thereof have presented this appeal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in writ petition, was a Conductor in the Kolar Division of the Corporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him andi he was dismissed from the service of the Corporation by an order dt. 22. 11. 1979 of the Chief Traffic Manager. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of his dismissal on several grounds. One of such grounds was that the Chief Traffic Manager had no authority to hold the disciplinary enquiry and to dismiss him (the petitioner) from service. The learned single judige upheld that contention, and quashed the impugned order of dismissal without going into the other grounds on which the order of dismissal was impugned. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the finding of the learned single Judge that the Chief Traffic Manager was not competent to pass the order of dismissal. On the other hand, Sri r. N. Byra Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent herein, sought to support the view taken by the learned single Judge. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Karnataka State, Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'regulations') made by the Corporation under S. 14 of the Road Transport Corporation act, 1950 with the previous sanction of the State Government, amendments thereto and orders in the nature of resolutions made by the Corporation under them. Regln 2 of the Regulations contains definitions of expressions used in the regulations. Clause (d) Off that Regulation defines 'disciplinary Authority' thus :-" (d) 'disciplinary Authority' in relation to imposition of penalties on a Corporation servant means the authority competent under these regulations to impose on him that penalty ;" regln. 18 sets out the penalties that may be imposed on a servant of the corporation. Such penalties have been classified as minor penalties and major penalties. One of such major penalties is dismissal from service. Regln. 18 sets out the penalties that may be imposed on a servant of the corporation. Such penalties have been classified as minor penalties and major penalties. One of such major penalties is dismissal from service. Regln. 19 of the Regulations deals with the 'disciplinary Authorities'. ( 6 ) THAT Regulation reads : -"19. Disciplinary Authorities.- (1) The Corporation may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 18 on any Corporation servant. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-regulation (1) any of the penalties specified in regulation 18 may be imposed on a Corporation servant by the Authority specified in the schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a, general or special order of the Corporation. " ( 7 ) THE Schedule to the Regulations sets out Disciplinary and appellate Authorities in respect of different categories of servants of the Corporation. The Schedule was amended by the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (First Amendment!) Regulations, 1975 which came into effect from 1. 9. 1975. Under amended Sch. A, for the category of Conductors, the Disciplinary authority for imposing major penalties, is the Deputy General Manger and divisional Controller and the Appellate Authority is the General Manager. The following is the extract from the proceedings of the meeting of the Corporation held on 17/18 1. 1977:-"proceedings qf the 108th meeting of the Karnataka State Road Trnsport Corporation held at 10-30 A. M. on 17th and 18th January 1977 at the central Offices, Bangalore-27. Subject No 7 : Legal hurdle in respect of exercising the disciplinary powers as per the provisions Qf the ksrtc Servants (C and D) Regulations, 1971, by the Officers/employees who are placed in Incharge/lndiependent charge of higher post. Resolution No. 3497. Resolved that in exercise of the powers vested under sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 19 of the K. S. R. T. C. Servants (C and D) Regulations, 1971, approval be accorded for empowering the next higher authority than the disciplinary authority to exercise all or any of the powers of any disciplinary authority as set out in the schedule to the said Regulations, except the powers vested in the Corporation. " ( 8 ) THE following is the extract from the proceedings of the meeting of the corporation held on 25. 1. 1978 :-"subject No. 17: Empowering general Manager under Regulation no. " ( 8 ) THE following is the extract from the proceedings of the meeting of the corporation held on 25. 1. 1978 :-"subject No. 17: Empowering general Manager under Regulation no. 19 (2) of C and D Regulations 1971 in respect of cases wherein disciplinary authorities have not been specified. Resolution No. 3943. Resolved that the General Manager be empowered to exercise the powers of initiating disciplinary proceedings and inflicting punishments both minor and major specified in Regulation no. 18 of Conduct and Discipline regulations 1971 in cases where disciplinary authorities have not been specified. The Board, hower, directed that a separate reference be made to DPAR 'or a clarification as to what is done in similar cases in Government . "dealing with the question, whether under Resolution No. 3497, dated 17/18. 1. 1977 the Chief Traffic Manager could be regarded as having been empowered to be the Disciplinary Authority under the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 19, the learned Single Judge has observed thus:"in the instant case the Officer competent to hold the disciplinary enquiry is the Deputy General Manager and he is the head of the Administrative Department. As can be seen from the Regulation, the next higher authority in that Department would be the General Manager, and not the Chief Traffic Manager as is thought of by the Department. So, the short point that arises for my consideration is whether the next higher authority mentioned in the resolution should be the next higher authority to the Disciplinary authority as mentioned in the schedule or next higher authority in the Unit. ""the Regulations show that the deputy General Manager is the head of the Administration Department and the next higher authority is the General Manager, whereas the chief Traffic Manager is the Head of the Traffic Department. There fore, the cadres of the Disciplinary authority and that of the Chief Traffic Manager are different and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Chief Traffic Manager, is the next higher authority to the Deputy General Manager. Hence, I am satisfied that the Chief traffic Manager could not be the disciplinary authority on whom the k. S. R. T. C. has conferred the powers by the aforesaid resolution to conduct enquiry. " ( 9 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that sub-regulation (2) of Regln. Hence, I am satisfied that the Chief traffic Manager could not be the disciplinary authority on whom the k. S. R. T. C. has conferred the powers by the aforesaid resolution to conduct enquiry. " ( 9 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that sub-regulation (2) of Regln. 19 provides for the impostion of penally on a Corporation servant not only by the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf, but also by any other authority empowered in this behalf by general or special orders of the Corporation and that Resolution No. 3497, dated 17-18. 1. 1977 of the Corporation should be regarded as a general order authorising an authority next higher than the authority specified in the schedule as the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the; penalties. Sri sundaraswamy maintained that under the Schedule, the Disciplinary Authority is the Deputy General Manager and divisional Controller of the Division and that as the Chief Traffic Manager is the next higher authority than the deputy General Maneger and Divisional controller, he (the Chief Traffic Manager) had the competence to impose penalties on the petitioner. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, Sri Byra Reddy contended that when the Schedule to the Regulations had specified the Deputy General Manager and Divisional controller as the Disciplinary Authority in relation to the, cadre of Conductors, it was not open to the Corporation to specify by a resolution any other authority as the Disciplinary Authority in relation to that cadre. This argument of Sri Byra Reddy overlooks that sub-regulation (2) of Regln. 19 provides for the Corporation specifying by general or special order, a Disciplinary authority other than the one specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. Hence, we have no hesistation in rejecting this contention of Sri byra Reddy. ( 11 ) IT was next contended by Sri Byra reddy that the higher authority that may be empowered under Regln. 19 (2) to exercise the powers of the Disciplinary Authority specified in the Schedule, should be one shown as the higher authority in the Schedulq. According to Sri Byra Reddy the higher authority so specified in the Schedule is the General Manager and not the Chief traffic Manager. ( 12 ) WHAT has been stated in Regln. 19 (2) is any other authority empowered in this 'behalf by general or special order of the Corporation'. According to Sri Byra Reddy the higher authority so specified in the Schedule is the General Manager and not the Chief traffic Manager. ( 12 ) WHAT has been stated in Regln. 19 (2) is any other authority empowered in this 'behalf by general or special order of the Corporation'. It is nowhere statedi in that Regulation that such authority should be specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. Hence we are unable to accept the contention of Sri Byra Reddy that the higher authority so specified by a general or special order of the corporation, should be one specified as the higher authority in the Schedule to the Regulations. ( 13 ) WE shall now deal with the question whether the Chief Traffic Manager is the, next higher authority to Deputy general Manager and Division Controller. The learned single Judge took the view that the Chief Traffic Manager was merely the Head of the Traffic department and was not the next thigher authority to the Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller. In support of the contention that the chief Traffic Manager is the next higher authority to the Deputy - General Manager and Divisional Controller, sri Sundaraswamy relied on the Resolution of the Corporation, dt. 23. 1. 1963 to the effect that the post of the Deputy General Manager (Traffic) Class I, in the pay scale of Rs. 550-30-700-40-860, was upgraded and redesignated as the Chief Traffic Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 800-40-100- 50-1200. The reason for so upgrading that post has been stated thus :"the operating Divisions are headed by the Divisional Controller/dy. General Manager who is a Class I officer. In all the traffic matters referred to Central office by the Divisional Heads, the Deputy General manager (Traffic) has to scrutinise, determine thepolicy and intimate the line of action to be taken. In all policy matters, he has to take the approval of the General Manager of the Vice Chairman as the case may be, before it is conveyed to the Unit heads. The organisation has accepted in principle the delegation of powers to the Departmental heads in Central Office which will help the matters to be decided expeditiously and the way for efficient working of the organisation. In view of this, it is essential to elevate) the scale of the deputy General Manager (Traffic) and redesignate him as the. The organisation has accepted in principle the delegation of powers to the Departmental heads in Central Office which will help the matters to be decided expeditiously and the way for efficient working of the organisation. In view of this, it is essential to elevate) the scale of the deputy General Manager (Traffic) and redesignate him as the. Chief traffic Manager to enable him 1o control the executive limb of the transport organisation on an efficient and sound system. " ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid resolution, there can be no doubt that the post of Chief Traffic Manager is of a higher rank than that of the Deputy general Manager and Divisional Controller. Even so, the question is whether the Chief Traffic Manager is the next higher authority to the Deputy General manager and Divisional Controller. ( 15 ) IN paras 2 and 3 of the additional statement filed on behalf of the Corporation, in this appeal, it is stated thus :"in matters relating to the Traffic, the Chief Traffic Manager is the Departmental Head. His jurisdiction covers the entire State in all matters relating to operations i. e. , Traffic. The next below the Departmental heads, there are various Deputy general Managers and Divisional Controllers or corresponding officers of the same grade. . In the Traffic department, next below the Chief traffic Manager is the Deputy General manager and Divisional Controller. One such Deputy General Manager functions at the Central Office and separate officers in each of the Divisions. All instructions and directions in matters rleating to the Traffic are conveyed to the Deputy General manager and Divisional Controllers by the Chief Traffic Manager and it is through the Chief Traffic Manager, that papers are submitted by the deputy General Managers to the general Manager. From time to time, circulars are issued by the chief Traffic Manager to the Deputy general Manager and Divisional Controllers at the Central office and divisions in all matters pertaining to Traffic. A bunch of these circulars by way of illustration, are produced herewith as per Annexure-3 to 3-J. " ( 16 ) ANNEXURE-3 to the Additional Statement, is Circular No. 345 issued by the chief Traffic Manager and addressed to Deputy General Managers and Divisional Controllers. The last para of that circular reads :"receipt of the Circular be acknowledged and compliance reported. The last para of that circular reads :"receipt of the Circular be acknowledged and compliance reported. " annexure-3a to the Additional statement, is Circular No. 339 addressed by the Chief Traffic Manager to the deputy General Managers and Divisioinal controllers. The last para of that circular reads : "receipt of this Circular should be acknowledged. " we do not see any good reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in the additional statement filed on behalf of the Corporation to the, effect that papers are submitted by Deputy General Managers to the, General manager through the Chief Traffic manager; that circulars are issued by tine Chief Traffic Manager to the Deputy General Managers and Divisional controllers; that all instructions and directions in matters reating to the Traffic are conveyed to Deputy General managers and Divisional Controllers by the Chief Traffic Manager. These circumstances are, in our opinion, sufficient to infer that the Chief Traffic manager is the next higher authority to Deputy General Managers and Divisional Controllers. We are unable to agree with the view to the contrary taken by the learned single Judge. ( 17 ) IT was lastly contended by Shri Byra reddy that Resolution No 3497, dt. 17/18. 1. 1977 of the Corporation, stood repealed by/resolution. No. 3943, dt. 25. 7. 1978 and that even if the former resolution had authorised the Chief traffic Manager to be the Disciplinary authority, after passing of Resolution no. 3043 the Chief Traffic Manager was superseded by the General Manager. ( 18 ) THE aforesaid two resolutions cover two different matters. The earlier resolution is intended to specify Disciplinary Authorities where Disciplinary authorities as specified in the schedule to the Regulations, are not available on account of their absence, or on account of those posts being vacant or on, account of incharge arrangements being made for those posts. The latter resolution is intended to specify the Disciplinary Authority in respect of any category of posts for which Disciplinary Authority has not been specified in the Schedule. While the former resolution relates to categories of coporation servants in respect of whom disciplinary Authorities have been specified in the Schedule, the latter resolution relates to categories of Corporation servants in respect of whom disciplinary Authorities have not been specified in the Schedule. While the former resolution relates to categories of coporation servants in respect of whom disciplinary Authorities have been specified in the Schedule, the latter resolution relates to categories of Corporation servants in respect of whom disciplinary Authorities have not been specified in the Schedule. As these two resolutions cover two different fields, the latter resolution cannot be construed as annulling or modifying the former resolution. Disagreeing with the learned single judge, we hold that the Chief Traffic manager was competent to pass the order of dismissal against the petitioner. As the learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ petition solely on the question of competence of the Chief traffic Manager who passed the impugned order of dismissal and has not examined the other grounds on which the petitioner's dismissal was impugned, it bcomes necessary to remit the case to the learned single Judge to consider those other grounds and to decide the writ petition afresh. ( 19 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single judge and remit the case to him to dispose of the writ petition after considering the grounds other than the one relating to the competence of the chief Traffic Manager to impose the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. In this appeal, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. After we pronounced the above judgment in Court, the learned Counsel for the respondent, made an oral application for grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court from our Judgment. ( 20 ) IN our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance, which needs to be decided by the Supreme-Court, can be said to arise from our judgment. Hence, we decline to grant the certificate prayed for and dismiss the oral application. --- *** --- .