K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 24-1-1989 bearing No. B. 12 (7) FR. 163/85-86 (Annexure F), passed by the first respondent reducing the pay of the petitioner to that of the Second Division Clerk, with effect from 1-2-1989 and also withholding the promotion and the increment for a period of five years. ( 2 ) THE question for consideration is: Whether the petitioner has a right of appeal against the aforesaid order? ( 3 ) THE contention of Sri Bajentri, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the matter is covered by sub section (4) of Section 90 of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); that as the state Government has not framed the rules, the right of appeal even though provided under the Act, no authority is prescribed to exercise the appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, Sri Caste- lino, learned Counsel appearing for the corporation submits that under the repealed enactment, namely, the City of bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 act') an appeal was provided under section 95 to a Standing Committee under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 95 of the 1949 Act. However, the 1949 act did not specify a particular Standing committee, therefore, the Corporation passed a Resolution dated 19th November, 1953, empowering the Standing Committee, taxation and Finance to exercise the power under Section 95 of the 1949 Act. Accordingly, since that date the Standing committee for Taxation and Finance has been exercising the appellate jurisdiction even to this day because the State government has not framed the Rules under sub-section (4) of Section 90 of the Act and the Resolution cf the Corporation dated 19th November, 1953, is saved by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 507 of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the 1949 act provided a right of appeal under similar circumstances against the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty to the Standing Committee. The 1949 Act did not specify the particular standing Committee. The Corporation by its Resolution dated 19th Nov. . ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the 1949 act provided a right of appeal under similar circumstances against the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty to the Standing Committee. The 1949 Act did not specify the particular standing Committee. The Corporation by its Resolution dated 19th Nov. . 1953 specified the Standing Committee for taxation and Finance to exercise the power of appeal Even to this day the Standing committee for Taxation and Finance is exercising the power of appeal under the Act in such matters, even though the 1949 Act is repealed by the Act The second proviso to Section 507 of the Act has saved 'anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, tax, duty, fee, or cess imposed, notification, order, instrument, or direction issued rule, regulation, form, bye law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted or registration effected) under the 1949 Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done of any action taken under the Act. ' Therefore, it is clear that the Resolution of the Corporation dated 19-11-1953 specifying the forum of appeal is saved by the second proviso to Section 507 of the Act. It is not brought to my notice that the Act contains any provision which is contrary to or indicative of contra intention to take away the right of appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority or specifying the Appellate Authority other than the Standing Committeefor Taxation and Finance. On the contrary, subsection (4) of Sec. 90 of the Act specifically provides that any officer or other employee upon whom a punishment has been imposed under Section 90 of the act may apneal to such officer or authority as may be prescribed. As per clause (29) of Section 2 of the Act "prescribed" means prescribed by Rules made under the Act. The Rules are to be framed by the State Government. The Rules are not yet framed by the State Government specifying the authority different from the standing Committee for Taxation and finance to entertain appeals under subsection (4) of Section 90 of the Act. The Rules are to be framed by the State Government. The Rules are not yet framed by the State Government specifying the authority different from the standing Committee for Taxation and finance to entertain appeals under subsection (4) of Section 90 of the Act. Consequently, the Standing Committee for Taxation and Finance, which is empowered under the Resolution of the corporation dated 19-11-1953 to entertain and decide the appeals under the 1949 Act which is saved by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 507 of the Act, is entitled to entertain and decide appeals preferred under sub-section (4) of Section 90 of the Act. That being so, the contention of the petitioner that as the State Government has not framed the Rules prescribing the Appellate authority the right of appeal is not exercisable by the petitioner, therefore, the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has become inevitable, cannot be accepted. In the view I take, the petitioner has a right of appeal, and the appeal lies to the Standing Committee for Taxation and Finance. It is now open to him to prefer an appeal to the Standing Committee for Taxation and finance. ( 5 ) WHEN an appeal lies, the petitioner will be better placed before the Appellate Forum as he can urge questions of fact as well as law, and in case if he fails before the Appellate Forum, it will still be open to him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In that event there will be two orders of two statutory authorities which will be of great assistance to this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, I am of the view that when there is a right of appeal provided which lies both on facts and law, it is not just and appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms : if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Standing Committee for taxation and Finance on or before the end of this month, the said Committee shall entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. All other contentions are left open. All other contentions are left open. --- *** --- .