Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) Although there are two questions, one of fact and one of law, which arise in these two appeals, the learned Attorney-General fairly left the final outcome on the question of fact untouched because he was more concerned with a correct construction of Section 79 (k) read with S. 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the validity of regulations framed by the U. P. State Electricity Board on December 18, 1970 in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 79 (c) of the Act. That regulation lays down the mode of appointment to various posts under the Board, the appointing authorities thereof, the authorities who are competent to impose punishment on the employees and the authorities competent to hear appeals against disciplinary action. The said regulation was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 2-1-1971 pages 65-71 (Part I).
(2.) This regulation was struck down by the High Court on the score that there was no power of delegation by the Board which made the appointments and which ordinarily would be clothed with the power of terminating appointments. It is common ground that there is no specific provision under the Act which authorised the Board to delegate its powers and, therefore, the question turns upon the correct meaning and amplitude of Section 79 (c). and (k) of the Act. We think that while S. 79 (c) has been relied upon by the authority making the regulation, the appropriate provision is S. 79 (k) which we read at this stage: "79. The Board may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the Rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions under this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make regulations."
(3.) Section 79 (c) which has actually been relied on may also be extracted here: "79 (c). The duties of officers and other employees of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service.";