S. K. Kapur, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, an Assistant Audit Officer in Northern Railway, has challenged the order dated 28-P-1965 signed by the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General directing that the petitioner be transfered and posted as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Ranchi. Various allegations had been made in the petition to the effect that the transfer order was a result of malice, but on 13-12-1-965 the petitioner made an application being civil miscellaneous No. 5250-D of 1965 asking for permission to drop the point regarding mala fides. This application was allowed by me by my order dated 14-12-1965 and it is, therefore, not necessary to advert to any fact relevant to the said allegations. ( 2 ) RELYING on regulation 124 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders, as corrrected up to 1-3-1952, the petitioner says that he cannot be transferred outside "the circle. " According to the petitioner, the effect of the impugned order is that he is being transferred from the post of the Assistant Audit Officer in the Northern Railway to another department as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar. Regulation 124 was amended on 1-4-1961 and it is not in dispute that under the amended regulation the petitioner could he transferred. It is. however, said that the amended regulation cannot be resorted to for the reasons, which shall be discussed hereafter. It is pertinent to quote regulation 124 before and after the amendement of 1961- (Before Amendment) "assistant Accounts Officers employed in the Post and Telegraphs Audit and Accounts are liable for service anywhere in India. Those employed in the Railway Andit Offices are liable to transfer within the circle to which they belong, while those employed in the organisation of the Accountant General, Food, Rehabilitation and Supply, are liable to transfer from the Headquarters office or the branch offices to any of the offices in the organisation. Tansfer among other Assistant Accounts Officers are not ordinarily made bat maybe made when considered necessary on terms to beprescribed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in each individual case. " (After Amendment) "assistant Accounts Officers of the Posts and Telegraph Audit Department and the Assistant Audit Officers of the Defence, Commercial and Supply Audit Departments are liable for service anywhere in India. " (After Amendment) "assistant Accounts Officers of the Posts and Telegraph Audit Department and the Assistant Audit Officers of the Defence, Commercial and Supply Audit Departments are liable for service anywhere in India. Transfers of other Assistant Accounts/audit Officers are not ordinarily made. They are, however, liable like all other Central Government servants, to be transferred from one office to another, subject to the provisions of F. R. 15. The Comptroller and Auditor General transfers such persons to any other office within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department or to any office under the Central Government on such terms and conditions as may be determined by him in each case. "reference is then made to the Indian Railway Code, I960 edition. Appendix I, clause 13, to show that the Audit Department was under the control of Auditor General, but not the Accounts department. This has been REFERRED TO in support of the contention that the petitioner is being transferred from one department to another. On an objection taken by the respondents that regulation 124 is not a statutory regulation and no right can be founded thereon, Mr. I. M. Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on section 96-D of the Government of India Act, 1915, as amended in 1919 sub-section (1) whereof provides that "an auditor-General shall be appointed by Secretary of State in Council and shall hold office during his Majesty s pleasure. The Secretary of State in Council shall, by rules, make provision for his pay, powers, duties and conditions of employment, or for the discharge of his duties in the case of a temporary vacancy or absence from duty. " My attention has also been invited in this behalf to (1) Railway Audit Code (1931), paragraph 6, showing the various circles into which the railway branch of the Audit Department is divided In the preface to the said Audit Code, it is recited, "it derives its authority from the rules framed undersection 96-D (1) of the Government of India Act ; (2) Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders, 1938 edition, clause 124, saying,-". . . . . . Those employed in the Railway Audit offices are liable for transfer within the circle to which they belong. . . . . . Those employed in the Railway Audit offices are liable for transfer within the circle to which they belong. Transfers among others Assistant Accountants Officers are not ordinarily made but may be made when considered necessary on terms to be prescribed by the Auditor General in each individual case"; (3) Railway Audit Manual, second edition, clause 67. reading, inter aha,-"the Subordinate Railway Audit Service has been re-organised on a localised system with effect from the 1st July, 1935. For this purpose and the Railway Audit Department has been plit up into three distinct and self-contained circles of Railway Audit offices. These are the Northern the Eastern and the Southern circles. The Northern circle comprises the offices of the Chief Auditor, Eastern Punjab Railway, the Chief Auditor, Railway Clearing Accounts, the Chief Auditor, Oudh and Tirhut Railway. . . . . . . . . Members of the Subordinate Railway Audit Service are localised in one of these circles and are liable for service in any Railway Audit Office within the circle to which they are localised and also in the office of the Director of Railway Audit. Similarly, Subordinate Railway Audit Service passed clerks are localised in the circles in which they hold liens . . . . . . " ; and (4) Railway Andit Mannual, 1943 edition, appendix 8, clause 2. ( 3 ) MR. S. N. Shanker. the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the form of regulation 124 in the Audit General s Manual of Standing Orders as well as other regulations contained therein, show that these regulations are not statutory and consequently no right can be founded thereon, and that under the Fundamental Rules 2, 11, 14b and 15, the Government has an absolute right to transfer. Rule 11 provides-"unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority without claim for additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such. . . . . . Rule 11 provides-"unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority without claim for additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such. . . . . . " Rule 14b provides for the power of the Governor General in Council to transfer to another permanent post in the same cadre the lien of a Government servant, who is not performing the duties of the post to which the lien relates, even if that lien has been suspended. This power is subject to the provisions of rule 15. Rule 15 may be quoted with advantage :- "f. R. 15 (a) The Governor General in Council may transfer a Government servant from one post to another provided that except - (1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (2) on his written request, a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively to, or, except in a case covered by rule 49, appointed to officiate in, a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on. which he holds a lien, or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under Rule 14. (b) Nothing contained in clause (a) of this Rule or in clause (13) of Rule 9 shall operate to prevent the retransfer of a Government servant to the post on which he would hold a lien, had it not been suspended in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 14"mr. Shankar has stated at the bar that the transfer of the petitioner is on a temporary basis and his lien is not being terminated. It is also said on behalf of the respondents that Divisional Audit Officer is not a rank at all. The petitioner is a class II officer and he is being transferred to an exactly equivalent post. According to the respondents the transfer is from one wing of the Audit Department to another wing of the same Department, and in the order of transfer dated the 28th August 1965, it is in terms stated : "in the post to which you have been transferred, you will be entitled to draw the grade pay admissible to you from time to time in the office of the Chief Auditor, Northern Railway. " Having carefully considered the argument on this point at the bar, I am of the opinion that regulation 124 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders is not a statutory regulation conferring any justiciable right on the petitioner and the same is the position with respect to regulation 124 of the Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders, 1938 edition. The Fundamental Rules REFERRED TO above confer sufficient power on the concerned authorities to transfer the petitioner on temporary basis particularly when, as discussed hereafter, the petitioner is going to enjoy the same terms and conditions as enjoyed by him in the present post. ( 4 ) THIS brings me to the second contention of Mr. I. M. Lall, that even if the various regulations mentioned hereinabove do not confer a justiciable right on the petitioner, they are conditions of service and. consequently, cannot be altered to his detriment. This requires me recur for a moment to the contention the petitioner that the unamended regulation 124 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Standing Orders govern the case of petitioner. It is said that that was regulation applicable to the petitioner when he was in service and that become the condition of his service, not susceptible to any alteration resulting in detriment to the petitioner. The respondent awear to the effect that there has been no Petriment to the petitioner. I will advert to this aspect again a little later, but suffice it here to say that I am convinced about the respondents plea. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, cannot prevail. This renders it unnecessary to decide the contention raised by Mr. Shankar that regulation 124 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders, as amended in 1961, confers a right on the respondents to transfer the petitioner, and even if this regulation is taken to be a statutory regulation, then. as held in S. V. G. Iyengar v. State of Mysore, such a regulation can be competently made, though prejudictally affecting an employee. ( 5 ) MR. Lall then contends that the Deputy Auditor General was not competent to pass the order of transfer. as held in S. V. G. Iyengar v. State of Mysore, such a regulation can be competently made, though prejudictally affecting an employee. ( 5 ) MR. Lall then contends that the Deputy Auditor General was not competent to pass the order of transfer. He has relied on paragraph 7 of the reply-affidavit wherein it is said : "the order of transfer in the instant case was passed by the Deputy comptroller and Auditor General of India who is competent to do so in accordance with para 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders, a copy of which is enclosed as annexure R. 6. " The said paragraph 3 reads as follows:- "the Comptroller and Auditor General has a Deputy who functions, in general, as Chief of Staff, and, except in the case of reports on accounts submitted to Parliament and State Legislatures, has authority to deputise for the Comptroller and Auditor General m any matter and to any extent as may be mutually determined from time to time between the Comptroller and Auditor General and himself. The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General is, in particular responsible for the efficient working of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General s general control, issues orders from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. "reliance has been placed on para 47 of Railway Audit Manual, Third Edition (1960), which provides :- "the Subordinate Railway Audit Service has been decentralised and localised on individual Railways with effect from the 1st May, 1956. The general control over the members of Subordinate Railway Accounts Service in the matter of leave, transfers officiating appointments and promotions rests with the Chief Anditor of each Railway subject to the restrictions imposed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Members of the Subordinate Railway Accounts Service are localised on the Railway only or to the Railway to which they have opted at the time of the above localisation and are liable for service in any Railway Audit office within that Railway and also in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Similarly, Subordinate Railway Accounts Service passed clerks are localised on the Railway on which they hold liens. Similarly, Subordinate Railway Accounts Service passed clerks are localised on the Railway on which they hold liens. Transfers of Subordinate Railway Accounts service men or Subordinate Railway Accounts Service passed Clerks from one Railway to another are not rdinarily admissible. "reference is then invited to the rules issued by the Secretary of State for India in Council framed under section 96-D (1) of the Government of India Act, 1915 as amended in 1919 and reliance has been placed on rule 28 thereof. The said rule is as under:- "28. The Auditor General may :- (i) in the case of officers of the Indian Audit Department below the rank of Deputy Auditor General, transfer, censure, suspend or degrade any such officer, withhold from his any increment or increments of pay, recover from his pay the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to Government by negligence or breach of orders, promote him to any grade or post in the Indian Audit Department below the rank of Deputy Auditor General or declare him to be permanently unfit for promotion, grant him any leave thet may be admissible under rule, and exercise the powers of a local Government under the Government Servants Conduct Rules. (ii) in the case of officers of the Indian Audit Department of any grade lower then Class I, delegate to any officer of the Indian Audit Department the power of granting any leave thet may be admissible under Rule. "on the basis of the said rule 28, it is said thet the power of transfer may be exercised by Auditor General and none else and it is only power to granting leave to an officer of any grade lower then Class I thet can be delegated, as provided in rule 28 (ii ). ( 6 ) MR. Lal then relies on the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Assistant Accounts Officers and Assistant Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules. 1963, and referring to item 11 in the Schedule thereof, it is said thet it is only by promotion thet the new vacancy, to which the petitioner has been transferred, could be filled. It is further said thet para 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Mannual of Standing Orders, quoted hereinabove, has no applicability to the transfer of the petitioner. Mr. It is further said thet para 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Mannual of Standing Orders, quoted hereinabove, has no applicability to the transfer of the petitioner. Mr. Shankar has relied on Compilation of the Fundamental Rules made by the Secretary of State in Council under section 96-B of the Government of India Act. and the Supplementary Rules made by the Governor General in Council, Volume II, as corrected up to 31st August 1963. Appendix No. 4 thereof is headed : "delegations made by the Governor-General in Council under Fundamental Rules 4 and 6. " Serial No. 6-A, refers to fundamental rule 15 and, delegates "power to transfer a Government servant from one post to another" to all needs of departments. Under Appendix 14. the list of Heads of Department is given. The list of such appears with respect to Finance Department starts with item 36. Item 40 reads; "chief Auditors and Government Examiners of Railway Accounts. " According to Mr. Lal, the Head of department being the Chief Auditor, the Deputy Auditor General could still not pass the transfer order while, according to Mr. Shankar, the head of Department could with respect to such administrative matters delegate the functions and in any case such Head of the department would have inherent power to do so. Mr. Shankar says thet in such powers also stand delegated by virtue of para 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual of Standing Orders quoted hereinabove. Having considered the arguments, I am of the opinion thet the powers have been validly entrusted fo the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of said paragraph 3. Matter of such entrustment is a matter of internal arrangement of the Department and power to authorise other officials to exercise such ministerial functions would be implicit in the conferment of power on the Head of Department. In my opinion, sub-rule (11) of rate 28 does not limit the power as contended for by the petitioner. Strictly speaking, such entrustment may not even be termed as delegation. By the said paragraph 31 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual, only a machinery has been created for discharge by the Deputy of the business entrusted to him, all of whose acts are "subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General s general control. Strictly speaking, such entrustment may not even be termed as delegation. By the said paragraph 31 of the Comptroller and Auditor General s Manual, only a machinery has been created for discharge by the Deputy of the business entrusted to him, all of whose acts are "subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General s general control. " There is, in law no delegation, because constitutionally all the acts or decisions of the Deputy are those of the Auditor General. The degree of freedom from control with which the delegate is vested is really the decisive factor in determining the validity of delegation. It is a known rule of law announced in innumerable decisions that where effective powers of control by the delegating authority are extremely significant the Court may uphold the entrustment of power by denying that there has been any delegation at all, on the ground that in substance the authority responsible for passing on the functions to his subordinates continues to address its own mind to the exercise of its powers. I think, the degree of control retained by the Auditor General is close enough for the decisions to be regarded as the Auditor General s own. In every case the Courts must balance the demands of administrative efficiency against the tradition of adherence to the letter of law in matters affecting the rights of private parties. Some matters may be so important that the authority must address himself to them personally. This is, howeuer, a matter in which it can be ligitimately said that the Auditor General can act through his deputies, retaining a close control. Reference may be made to Halsbury s Laws of England, third edition. Volume I, page 170, paragraph 397. ( 7 ) MR. Lall then says that the transfer will entail financial loss as well as loss of concession of first class railway pass and use of saloon. Mr. Shankar, on the other hand. states that the petitioner gets the same conditions of service as are applicable to him in his present post. According to him, the fear of Mr. Lall that the petitioner will lose the Provident Fund benefit is unfounded, as the Provident Fund would still continue since the transfer is on a temporary basis and the petitioner s lien is not being terminated. According to him, the fear of Mr. Lall that the petitioner will lose the Provident Fund benefit is unfounded, as the Provident Fund would still continue since the transfer is on a temporary basis and the petitioner s lien is not being terminated. In paragraph 7 of the reply-affidavit also, it is said that the petitioner is being transferred to an exactly equivalent post. Mr. Shankar points out by reference to sub-para (3) of paragaph 7 of the reply-affidavit that the concession with respect to railway pass and use of saloon in purely discretionary and not claimable as of right. Having regard to the position taken up by the respondents, I am not satisfied on the materials on this record that the petitioner is not being transferred to an exactly equivalent post. In any case, such controversies cannot be resolved in a writ petition. This contention of the petitioner must, therefore, be repelled. It follows that the argument of the petitioner that Article 311 of the Constitution is being violated, must also fail. ( 8 ) THE last contention of Mr. Lall is that his lien on the present post is being terminated. Mr. Shankar replying on rule 14-B of the Fundamental Rules, says that holding of lien is subject to power of transfer, but that question should not arise because the petitioner s lien is not being terminated. In view of this statement by Mr. Shankar, It is not necessary to resolve the controversy. ( 9 ) IN the result, this petition must fail and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.