( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is taken up for final disposal, on issuing rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, since the question in controversy relates only in respect of the jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction, of the second respondent to pass an order of suspension against Class II employee of the corporation.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Class II officer working in the first respondent-Corporation as a Warehouse Manager-Grade II. By the order dated 1-6-1996, the second respondent kept him under suspension in contemplation of an enquiry in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the said order on the ground that, the second respondent lacks jurisdiction to make an order of suspension against Class II officer in view of regulation 20 of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'regulations' ).

( 3 ) SRI N. B. Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that, in view of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'), the Board of Directors of the first respondent-Corporation have delegated the power to place any officer under suspension excepting Commercial Manager pending detailed enquiry, to the Managing Director by Board resolution No. 4/bd Mtg. dated November 19, 1983; in view of such delegation of powers by the Board of Directors, Regulation 20 of the regulations becomes irrelevant; where there are more than one source of power, it is open to the authority to choose either of the two and, the Managing Director in exercise of his delegated powers by virtue of the resolution dated November 19, 1983, has passed the order impugned in this petition, and therefore it is valid and enforceable. Per contra, Sri K. R. Bhavani Shankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the regulations have been made under the rule making powers, with the prior approval of the Government; when such regulations are in force, they cannot be rendered ineffective by a mere resolution of the Board; the resolution, in view of the regulations, has no relevance.

( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the only question that arise for my consideration in this petition is, whether the impugned order of the Managing Director made in exercise of his delegated power under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, is valid and enforceable, in spite of being violative of Regulation 20 of the regulations.

( 5 ) IT is admitted that the regulations are made -by the Corporation in exercise of power under Section 54 of the agricultural Produce (Development and Warehousing) corporations Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the 1956 Act'), and they continue to be in operation, by virtue of Section 43 (2) (d) of the Act. Regulation 20 of the regulations, reads as follows:"20. An employee may be placed under suspension, pending an inquiry against him for breach of discipline or where a case against him, in respect of any criminal offence, is under investigation or trial. The power to place an employee of Class III under suspension she i be exercised by the Managing Director and by the Executive Committee in respect of employees in Class I or II". Section 54 of the 1956 Act reads as follows:"54. (1) A Warehousing Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for, (a) the conditions of service, of and the remuneration payable to, the officers and other