( 1 ) THESE appeals are by the unsuccessful petitioners before the learned Single judge. The first appellant Devaraj Urs filed WP 2474/80; the second appellant Srinivasalah filed WP. 865/80 and the third appellant Narasimhachar filed WP. 843 of 1980; challenging the validity of the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Servants (Conduct and discipline) Regulations, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations'. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these petitions are these. The erstwhile State of Mysore was running on monopoly basis certain Transport services on certain specified routes. The conduct and management of these services was by the Mysore Government Road transport Department (MGRTD ). A set of standing orders under the industrial Employment standing orders Act, 1946 was in force in the mgrtd. Bangalore Transport Company -B. T. C. was operating the transport Services within the City of Bangalore find surrounding areas upto a distance of 10 miles, from the city limits. The B. T. C. was nationalised with effect from 1-10-1956, but was retained as a separate unit the B. T. C. had its own standing orders and they were continued even after nationalisation. ( 3 ) AFTER the reorganisation of the States with effect from 1-11-1956, two other Transport Units came over to the New State of Mysore. One was the transport undertaking of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad operating in the Districts allotted to the New State of Mysore. The other was that part of the Bombay road Transport undertaking, which related to the districts of the erstwhile State of Bombay allotted to the New State of Mysore. The service conditions governing the employees of each of the areas allotted, continued to be in force even after they came over to the New State of mysore. ( 4 ) THE M. G. R. T. D. had constituted the following divisions for facility of operations. Mysore Division, Bangalore Division, Bellary division, Hassan Division, Gulbarga division and Belgaum Division in addition to the Regional Workshop division at Hubli and the Regional workshop at Bangalore. Formerly the General Manager was the Head of the Bangalore Division. Later, the post of Deputy General Manager was created. The Bangalore Division was in charge of a Deputy General Manager and the B. T. S. was in charge of another Deputy General manager. Formerly the General Manager was the Head of the Bangalore Division. Later, the post of Deputy General Manager was created. The Bangalore Division was in charge of a Deputy General Manager and the B. T. S. was in charge of another Deputy General manager. The Regional Workshops were in charge of Works Manager and the other divisions were in charge of the Divisional Controllers. ( 5 ) IN about 1960 the Heads of divisions and Workshops were declared as appointing authorities for all classes of posts, the minimum of the pay scale of which was less than Rs. 100 per month. They were also given powers : (1) to appoint or terminate service; (2) to make temporary departmental promotions; and (3) to grant additional allowance to employees holding one or more posts in addition to his own duties as per rules. ( 6 ) THE heads of divisions and workshops were all of equal rank. Even after the divisions were constituted a new set of rules or standing orders applicable to all the divisions were not framed, but the standing order No. XIII of the Bangalore Division which was adopted by the M. G. R. T. D. in the year 1957 before the States reorganisation was made applicable to the employees of all the other divisions also. Standing Order XIII reads :"no order or fine, suspension, discharge or dismissal shall be executed unless so ordered by the deputy General Manager, Bangalore Division. The Deputy general Manager may order such enquiry as he thinks fit before passing orders, provided that in cases where punishment of dismissal is involved, the Depuly General manager shall hold an independent enquiry and pass orders". The resulting position therefore was though some powers like power to appoint certain classes of posts etc. , were delegated to the Heads of divisions who were all of an equal rank, in the year 1960, the power to take disciplinary action was not delegated but remained only with the Deputy General Manager of Bangalore Division because standing order XIII, governing the employees of Bangalore Division, continued to remain operative and applicable to the employees of the other divisions also. ( 7 ) MYSORE Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was constituted under S. 3 of the Road Transport corporation Act, 1950. ( 7 ) MYSORE Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was constituted under S. 3 of the Road Transport corporation Act, 1950. The Corporation took over the transport operation of the entire State, except that of the B. T. S. with effect from 1-8-1961 and that of B. T. S, w. e. f. 1-10-1961. The employees of the m. G. R-T. D. . by exercising their option became the employees of the corporation with certain safeguards. The conditions of Service of the Employees of the several divisions were those, an stated earlier, when the corporation took over the entire transport business, After they became the employees of the corporation their conditions of service had to be regulated or prescribed by the corporation because the standing orders of the B. T. S. and M. G. R. T. D. as also the other service conditions in force in the other units ceased to be in force after 31-1-1961. ( 8 ) THE State Government, therefore, in exercise of the power under s. 34 (1) of the Act issued on 1-8-1961 certain directions to the Corporation in relation to recruitment, conditions of service and wages to be paid to the employees of the M. G. R. T. D, who fay exercising their option had become the employees of the Corporation. The relevant portion of the direction, reads : "clause (2 ). In respect of all disciplinary proceedings or appeals arising therefrom pending immediately before 1st of August, 1961, the corporation or such officer or officers as may be designated by it shall be the disciplinary authority competent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to them before the transfer. " ( 9 ) "in of view of the fact that considerable time and attention would be required to scrutinise the various rules," regulations, proceedings and conventions as in force as on 31-1-1961 in the Mysore Government road Transport Department be continued by the Corporation -until further orders. " The effect of this resolution was that the rules and conditions of this resolution was that the rules and conditions of service which were in force on 31-7-1961 in the M. G. R. T. D. were confined and applied even after 31-7-1961 to all the employees of the Corporation, until a uniform set of rules are frmed in exercise of the powers of the Corporation under the Act. ( 10 ) THE Corporation in exercise of the power conferred by S, 14 of the act and with the previous sanction of the State Govt. has now framed the karnataka State Road Transport corporation Servants (Conduct and discipline) Regulations 1971, applicable to every corporation servant and this has come into force with effect from 15-6-1974. ( 11 ) THE appellants were appointed as Conductors in the Mysore division by the Divisional Controller of the KSRTC Mysore Division. In respect of some misconduct alleged, a disciplinary enquiry was held against the first appellant and he was dismissed from service by the Divisional Controller, Mysore Division by his order made on 910-1964. The general Manager, KSRTC dismissed his appnal. The first appellant challenged his dismissal in W. P. 94 of 1966. ( 12 ) THE question that came up for consideration before this Court in that case was whether the Divisional Controller had the compe. tence to make the order of dismissal, this Court held that "the Rules in force on 31-7-1961 in the MGRTD was continued and applied to Employees of the Corporation, and under stand- ing O. XIII of the MGRTD, it was the deputy General Manager, Bangalore division who was invested with the disciplinary power, under standing o. XIII and the Divisional Controller who passed the impugned order of dismissal was therefore not comnetent to make the order and quashed the order of dismissal Devaraj Vrs v. MSRTC (1910 (2)My. L,j. 497 ). The supreme Court affirmed the decision of this Court and dismissed the appeal of the Corporation The General manager, MSRTC v. Devaraj Vrs (AIR 1976 S. C. 1027.) ( 13 ) IN exercise of the powers under the Regulations the Deputy general Manager and Divisional controller, KSRTC, Mysore served a charge sheet dt. 7-12-1979 on the appellants. They filed writ petitions for quashing the charge sheets served a charge sheet dt. 7-12-1279 on the appellants. They filed Writ petitions for quashing the charge sheets served on them on the ground that the regulations are ultra-vires and void and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them are without competence. 7-12-1979 on the appellants. They filed writ petitions for quashing the charge sheets served a charge sheet dt. 7-12-1279 on the appellants. They filed Writ petitions for quashing the charge sheets served on them on the ground that the regulations are ultra-vires and void and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them are without competence. ( 14 ) IT was argued before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellants (1) that the regulations are given retrospective effect and they set aside the decision of this Court in Devaraj Vrs v. MSRTC and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the General Manager MSRTC v. Devaraj Urs and others and therefore without competence and having regard to the provisions of Art. 356 of the Constitution, the regulations are not legal and valid and (2) that there is no previous approval of the state Govt. to the regulations and even if there is, the said approval of the Government is taken on 15-8-1972 while the regulations have come into force only on 15-6-1974 and, therefore, the regulations are of no effect. ( 15 ) THE learned judge rejected all the contentions urged on behalf of the applicants, held that the Corporation had the competence to frame the regulations, the regulations are valid and dismissed the writ Petitions. ( 16 ) SRI Rangaswamy learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Corporation has no competence to frame the regulations as, according to him, the regulations set aside or anull the decision of this Court in Devaraj Urs v. KSRTC 1970 (2) My. L. J. 4% and the decision of the supreme Court in KSRTC v. Devaraj urs 1976, S. C. 1027 and also because the regulations are given retrospective operation. He also argued that having regard to Art. 356 of the constitution, the regulations are not legal and valid. He further argued that though the Government accorded sanction to the regulations by its order made on 13-3-1972, they are brought into force with effect from 15-6-1974 and the inordinate delay renders the regulations invalid. ( 17 ) SRI Balakrishna, learned counsel for the Corporation argued in support of the order of the learned single Judge. He further argued that though the Government accorded sanction to the regulations by its order made on 13-3-1972, they are brought into force with effect from 15-6-1974 and the inordinate delay renders the regulations invalid. ( 17 ) SRI Balakrishna, learned counsel for the Corporation argued in support of the order of the learned single Judge. ( 18 ) A Corporation constituted under S. 3 of the Act has to regulate "the conditions of appointment and services and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the Chief Executive officer or General Manager and the chief Accounts Officers" and framing regulations in exercise of the powers confirmed under S 14 and 45, subject to the directions issued by the State govt. under S. 34 of the Act. ( 19 ) THIS position is made clear by the Supreme Court in Mysore state Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar, when it is held: if the State Government issues any directions under S. 34 relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees, the corporation must obey those directions. The conjoint effect of ss. 14 (3) (b), 34 and 45 (2) (c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must confirm to the directions, if any, given by the State Government under S. 34 and the regulations, if any framed under S. 45 (2) (c) ". ( 20 ) THE Supreme Court has made it further clear in the General Manager, MSRTC V. Devaraj Urs, 1976 s. C. 1027, wherein it is held:"it would thus be seen that until regulations are made with the previous sanction of the State Government the directions given under S. 34 in respect of the conditions of service has got the force of law. The Corporation by adopting the continuance of the old rules in its resolution dated 1-8-1961 did not and it could not depart from clause (2) of the notification dated 1-8-1961, giving directions in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. The effect of the two was to continue standing order No. XIII applicable to the employees of all the divisions where there was no other standing order or Rule to the contrary in the matter of dismissal or discharge from service. It may look a bit anamalous that in other divisions the appointing authority was the Divisional Controller. The effect of the two was to continue standing order No. XIII applicable to the employees of all the divisions where there was no other standing order or Rule to the contrary in the matter of dismissal or discharge from service. It may look a bit anamalous that in other divisions the appointing authority was the Divisional Controller. Yet, the dismissing authority was the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division. But the anomoly had to be removed at the appopriate time It was not done at any time before. On the other hand the authority of the Deputy General manager, Bangalore Division was continued in respect of the employees of the other divisions also. " ( 21 ) THE resolution dated 1-8-1961 by which the standing order XIII was continued and enforced, makes it very clear that it was only as an Interim and transitory arrangement the Corporation continued the old rules till a uniform set of rules are framed in excerclse of the power of the Corporation under the Act As observed by the Supreme Court the continuation and operation of standing order xiii had brought about an anomalous position and steps had to be taken to remove this a nomaly. The Corporation has therefore, with the approval of the State Government, framed the regulations applicable to all its officers and servants and has removed the anomaly pointed out by the supreme Court. The Divisional officers of the KSRTC are disciplinary authorities in respect of the employees of their respective Divisions to the extent specified in the various schedules in the regulations, is not In dispute. It was also not in dispute before us that the Divisional superintendent and the Divisional controller who has issued the charge sheet is one of the disciplinary authority under the regulations. ( 22 ) IN Devaraj Urs" case reported in 1970 (2) My. L. J. 496 and 1976 S. C. 1017 the question that came up for consideration was whether the Divisional Controller, Mysore Division or the other Divisional Officers were competent to Initiate disciplinary proceedings and pass orders. ( 22 ) IN Devaraj Urs" case reported in 1970 (2) My. L. J. 496 and 1976 S. C. 1017 the question that came up for consideration was whether the Divisional Controller, Mysore Division or the other Divisional Officers were competent to Initiate disciplinary proceedings and pass orders. It was held that standing order XIII was continued to apply to the employees of all the divisions and though the appointing authorities in the other divisions were the Divisional Officers, the dismissing authority was the Deputy General Manager of the bangalore Division and the authority of the deputy General Manager, Bangalore division was continued in respect of the employees of the other divisions. The order of dismissal passed by the Divisional Officers other than the Deputy General Manager was, therefore, held to be without competence and quashed. The competence of the Corporation to frame the regulations was not in question in devaraj Urs' case. In fact the competence of the Corporation to frame the regulations under the Act is recognised in Devaraj Urs'case. The said decisions do not in any way affect the competence of the Corporation to frame the regulations in exercise of its power under the Act. ( 23 ) THE decision of this Court and the Supreme Court in Devaraj urs' case is binding on all concerned. The Corporation, by the regulations, has not conferred or invested any power to take disciplinary proceedings on the other Divisional Officers, retrospectively and tried to validate the orders of iismissal quashed in the case of Devaraj Urs and others. The Corporation is not trying to enforce the orders quashed in the earlier proceedings after the regulations are framed. The disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed prior to the framing of the regula tions were questioned in Devaraj urs' case. If the Corporation inexercise of its powers under the Act, frames the regulations to regulate the conditions of service of its employees and takes steps to remove the anomalous position pointed out by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the Corporation is doing something inconsistent with the decision in Devaraj Urs, case or is trying to set aside the said decisions. ( 24 ) THE regulations cannot be considered to have retrospective effect unless such a construction appears from the regulations. In such a situation courts cannot ascribe retrospectivity to the regulations framed by the Corporation. ( 24 ) THE regulations cannot be considered to have retrospective effect unless such a construction appears from the regulations. In such a situation courts cannot ascribe retrospectivity to the regulations framed by the Corporation. That apart regulation 1 (2) provides "they shall come into force on such date as the Corporation may appoint by a publication of a notice specifying the date on the notice board of the Central office of the Corporation at bangalore. " The Corporation has by publication of a notice as required under regulation 1 (2) has brought the regulation in to force w. e. f. 15-6-1974 only and not from any earlier date. The regulations, we are satisfied, are only prospective and have no retrospective effect. ( 25 ) AS we have already noticed the Corporation obtained the approval ot the Govt when the State was under the President's rule. Sri Ranga- swamy, therefore argued that became of the first proviso to Article 156 these regulations are invalid. the first proviso to Article 356 of the Constitution reads :"provided nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court or to suspend In whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts. " ( 26 ) THE President has only recorded approval to the regulations framed by the Corporation in exercise of its powers under the Act. The President has not by according sanction, assumed to himself any of the powers of the High Court or suspended to himself any of the powers of the High Court or any provisions of the constitution relating to the High Court. P. Ranga swamy has not been able to demonstrate how the regulation be regarded as one made without the authority of law, and having regard to the proviso to Article 356 of the regulations are invalid. ( 27 ) THE Corporation has the competence to frame Regulations under the Act subject to the prior approval of the State Government. The Regulations have the requisite approval of the Govt- when the State was under the President's rule, is evidenced by the order made on 15-3-1972 and this was not disputed during hearing of these appeals. These regulations did not come into force the day on which the Government accorded approval. The Regulations have the requisite approval of the Govt- when the State was under the President's rule, is evidenced by the order made on 15-3-1972 and this was not disputed during hearing of these appeals. These regulations did not come into force the day on which the Government accorded approval. The choice of the date on which the regulations could come into force is left to the corporation by the regulations approved by the Government. Regulation 1 (2) states that the regulations shall come into force on such date as the Corporation may appoint by publication of the notice, specifying the date on the notice board of the central Office of the Corporation at bangalore. The Act or Regulations approved by the Govt. do not lay down that the regulations ceases to be in force unless they come into force at once or within any specified time. The validity of the regulations do not, therefore, depend on as to when they came into force. The regulations are not therefore rendered in valid because they came into force with effect from 15-6-1974 though Government accorded approval on 15-3-1972. ( 28 ) WE are satisfied that all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants are without any substance and the appeals are devoid of merit. Sri Rangaswamy has not been able to persuade us to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. ( 29 ) IN the result, and for the reasons stated above we dismiss these appeals, there being no order as to costs. --- *** --- .