JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is working as Upper Division Clerk in the service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") has challenged the order dated 23.7.1990 (Annexure-1) issued by the Director of Personnel, by which he has been transferred from the office of Assistant Engineer (REC) Hindaun to the office of the Executive Engineer (TCD-VII), Bhilwara. 2. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had joined the service of the Board as Lower Division Clerk on 5.6.78. Initially he was posted at Bundi. Later on he was first transferred to Sawai Madhopur and then to Hindaun. In December, 1988 he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and was posted at Doongarpur. On his own request, he was posted at Hindaun by an order dated 17.10.1989. By order 23.7.90 issued by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner has been posted at Bhilwara. The petitioner has alleged that the order of transfer has been passed on account of political pressure of Dr. Kirorilal Meena, Member, Parliament from Sawai Madhopur. Shri Kirorilal Meena has been impleaded as respondent No. 4. The petitioner has stated that the family of Dr. Kirorilal Meena is in dispute with the family of the petitioner in respect of a piece of land in the village. Previously also Dr. Kirorilal Meena, while he was Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, had exerted influence for getting the petitioner transferred out of Hindaun. At that time the petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif, Hindaun and a stay order was passed by the learned Munsif, Hindaun.The Board placed a note sheet before the learned Munsif, in which it had virtually been admitted that the transfer had been effected on account of desire of Shri Kirorilal Meena. After the stay order was passed by the Court, the Board itself cancelled the transfer order and, therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner became infructuous. Now he has again been transferred on account of the influence exercised by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also as- sailed his transfer as having been made by the authority, which is not empowered under the regulations to pass such order of transfer. Now he has again been transferred on account of the influence exercised by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also as- sailed his transfer as having been made by the authority, which is not empowered under the regulations to pass such order of transfer. The petitioner has made a reference to the provisions contained in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, which have come into force on 1.11.1964 and asserted that for the purpose of effecting transfer from one Circle to another, the power vests with the Chief Engineer and the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to issue the order of transfer. The petitioner has further averred that his children are studying at Hindaun and his wife has recently been operated and therefore, his family circumstances should have been taken into consideration before passing of the order dated 23.7.1990. 3. The respondents have contested the writ petition and have stated in the reply that the petitioner had been promoted by order dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure R-1) passed by the Director of Personnel. The petitioner had constantly remained at Hindaun between 16.4.1980 to 23.12.1988. Thus he has stayed at Hindaun for about 81/2 years. On promotion he had been posted at Bicchivada under the Assistant Engineer (REC) but he represented to the Management of the Board that he had several family difficulties and therefore, he should be posted at Hin-daun. After taking note of his request, the respondent No. 1 passed order dated 17.10.1989 posting the petitioner under the Assistant Engineer (REC) Hindaun. This order dated 17.10.1989 is Annexure R/2. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have denied the allegation that respondent No.4 was instrumental in passing the order dated 23.7.1990. An action has been taken by the competent authority taking note of the fact that out of total 12 years of service, the petitioner had remained at Hindaun for more than 81/2 years. On the question of competence of respondent No. 2 to pass the order of transfer, the respondents have in their reply made a reference to the provisions of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Service Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Regulations of 1962). It has been stated that prior to 27.11.1974, there were different controlling authorities for the posts of Upper Division Clerks in different offices. It has been stated that prior to 27.11.1974, there were different controlling authorities for the posts of Upper Division Clerks in different offices. By notification No. RSEB/Rules/M.O./MSR/D.92 dated 27.11.1974 the post of U.D.C. in the service of the Board came under the control of the Secretary, who used to be ex-officio Director of Personnel. In 279th meeting of the Board held on 23/24.7.79 the question of reorganisation of Personnel Branch was considered and it was decided that looking to the nature of the work and the work load, it would be in the interest of Board to segregate the post of Secretary from that of Director Personnel. The Board authorised the Chairman and Accounts-cum-Finance Member to fill the post of Director, Personnel. By their order dated 7.1.1980, the Chair- man and Accounts-cum-Finance Member clarified that the Director of Personnel would exercise the same powers as the Secretary would have done, in so far as the Personnel Branch was concerned. According to the respondents, after the amendment of 1962 Regulations by Notification dated 27.11.1974, the provisions contained in Regulation 3(v) read with Regulation 15 of 1964 regulations would stand impliedly repealed and will have no sanctity. According to the respondents, the power of making appointments, promotions, fixation of seniority, transfers etc. are now vested in the Director of Personnel and are being continuously exercised by him for a long period of time. The petitioner is now es- topped from questioning the power of Director of Personnel. Alternatively, it has been submitted that the Chief Engineer has power to transfer class III staff and the technical employees within his zone from one to another circle and has no power to transfer the employees from one wing to another. At the time of transfer, the petitioner was working in 0 and M Wing, which is under the control of Chief Engineer (0 and M- II) and has now been transferred to T and C Wing which is under the control of Chief Engineer (T and C) and the Chief Engineer (0 and M) does not have any power to transfer the petitioner out-side his Wing. 4. The first question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the order of transfer suffers from malice as alleged by the petitioner ? 5. 4. The first question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the order of transfer suffers from malice as alleged by the petitioner ? 5. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has produced under the direction of this court, f-cord containing proceedings leading to the transfer of the petitioner. After the careful scrutiny of the record, it has been found that there is no reference to any recommendation, desire or complaint of Dr. Kirorilal Meena,respondent No. 4, before the order dated 23.7.90 was passed. Whether respondent No. 4 exercised his influence for the purpose of petitioner's transfer in 1987 or not, could not have any adverse impact on the order of transfer dated 23.7.90 unless it is revealed from the record that this was also actuated by the pressure of respondent No. 4. Except making a bald allegation of mala-fide against the respondent No. 4 on the ground of family dispute, the petitioner has not produced any material before this court to establish that the order dated 23.7.90 had, in fact, been passed on the basis of pressure exerted by the respondent No. 4. For the purpose of providing mala-fides heavy burden lay upon the petitioner and he has failed to discharge the same. The record which has been produced before the court for perusal does not, in any way, suggest that respondent No.4 was, in any way, connected with the order dated 23.7.90. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri P. K. Sharma that the order of transfer has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on account of mala-fides and pressure exerted by respondent No. 4. It has not been controverted that the petitioner has worked for 8/ years at Hindaun and, therefore, in the absence of any definite material suggesting involvement of respondent No.4 in passing of order dated 23.7.90, it cannot held that order suffers from malice in fact. 6. The second question, which needs consideration is as to whether the order of transfer has been passed by the competent authority and as to whether the respondent No. 2, namely, the Director of Personnel, Rajasthan State Electricity Board has been empowered under law to effect such transfer ? For the purpose of deciding this question, reference need be made to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 and Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964. For the purpose of deciding this question, reference need be made to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 and Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964. Both the sets of Regulations have been framed by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Decision to frame these Regulations had been taken in the 44th Meeting of the Board held on 26.10.1962. The Regulations of 1962 were enforced with effect from 1.11.1962, whereas, the Regulations of 1964 were enforced with effect from 1.11.1964. 1962 Regulations' are applicable to all the employees of the Board. Regulation 5 of 1962 Regulations refers the categories of the staff included in the term 'ministerial staff'. The post of L.D.C. (including Store Keeper, Cashier) finds mention in item No. VII of Regulation 5(1). Rule 5(2) (iv) as it stands after the amendment was made by order dated 27.11.74 provides that the post of Stenographer Gr.II, Superintendent Gr.II, U.D.C. (including the Store-Keeper,Cashier) in the Board will form separate cadres for each category and shall be controlled by the Secretary. Regulation 6 provides for filling of posts by direct recruitment or by promotion. Regulation 7 contains provision regarding reservation in favour of members of SC/ST. Regulation 7(a) provides for reservation in favour of blind/deaf/orthopaedically handicapped and speech defective persons. Regulation 8 deals with the determination of vacancies. Regulation 9 contains provision regarding minimum and maximum age limit. Regulation 10 provides for academic qualifications. Some general provisions are contained in Regulations 10 to 15. Regulation 16 provides procedure for direct recruitment, whereas, Regulation 17 lays down for procedure for promotion to the posts higher than L.D.C.,Assistant Store Keeper and Stenographer Gr.II. Regulation 18 contains provision for appointment to the lower grades. Regulation 19 deals with appointment of persons from outside the Board. Regulation 20 deals with seniority. Regulation 21 contains provision regarding probation. Regulation 21 makes provision to deal with the contingencies relating to unsatisfactory progress during probation. Regulation 23 contains provision regarding confirmation. Regulation 24 makes provision for Scales of pay. Regulation 25 provides for pay during probation. Regulation 26 deals with leave, allowances etc. Regulation 27 says that Board shall have power of interpreting these Regulations and its interpretation shall be final. Regulation 23 contains provision regarding confirmation. Regulation 24 makes provision for Scales of pay. Regulation 25 provides for pay during probation. Regulation 26 deals with leave, allowances etc. Regulation 27 says that Board shall have power of interpreting these Regulations and its interpretation shall be final. Regulation 28 contains a provision indicating that all previous orders in respect of the matters covered by these Regulations shall stand superseded. Regulation 29 contains general power of the Board to relax any provisions of the Regulations. 7. So far as 1964 Regulations' are concerned they also apply to all employees of the Board except work charge employees, casual labours, persons for whose appointment and other matters covered by these Regulations, special provision is made by the law for the time being in force in regard to the matters covered by such law and persons engaged on retention cum-fee, part time or any other basis as consultants, advisers or counsel for legal profession or any other purpose. Regulation 3 contains definition clause and Regulation 3(v) contains definition of term 'competent Authority'. It would be useful to quote this definition clause: 3(v) 'Competent Authority' in relation to the exercise of any power means the Board or any authority or Officer declared or designated as such by the Board for the purpose of these Regulations. A list of authorities which exercise the powers of competent Authority under these regulations is given in appendix. Regulation 3 (xxxi) contains definition of transfer. According to this definition, transfer means the movement of an employee from one head quarter station in which he is employed to another such station either (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters. Regulations of 1964 contain general conditions of service, which includes provision relating to lien, suspension lien, termination lien, notice for quitting service, transfer, age of retirement, pension, C.P.F., pay and allowances, leave, foreign service, joining time, record of service and medical facilities. Regulation 15(a) provides that an employee may be transferred from one post to another equivalent post of the same category within or outside the sphere of duty of place of employment, under the orders of the competent authority provided that ............ Regulation 15(a) provides that an employee may be transferred from one post to another equivalent post of the same category within or outside the sphere of duty of place of employment, under the orders of the competent authority provided that ............ The list of authorities who exercise the power of the competent authority under the Regulations of 1964 has been given in the Book-let "Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations (1985 Edition) printed by the Board itself.In this list, at item No. 8 reference has been made to Regulation 15 and it has been provided that power to transfer Class III non-technical staff shall vest in the various authorities. Since this particular item has direct bearing to the decision of this case, it is useful to quote it:List of authorities who exercise the powers of competent authorities under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. S.No. No. of service Regulation Nature of Power Designation of the authority who exercise the power of competent authority Extent 8 -15 Power to transfer following staff Class III Non-Technical other than Accounts and Internal Auditors 2 Chief Engineer In the case of transfer in his own office including that of S.E.(PP) and S.E.(P) and in Subordinate offices when transfer is from one circle to the other 1. Office Supd. II S.E.(PP) And S.E.(P) and in Subordinates offices when transfer is from one circle to the order 2. Asstt. Revenue Officer 3. Steno Cr. II 4. Stock Verifier 5. Asstt. Recoveries 6. Assistant 7. Steno Gr. III 3. Controller of Accounts/Chief Internal Auditor In case of staff in their respective offices 8. Store Keeper 9. Head Clerk Internal Auditor 10. Upper Division 4. Superintending Engineer Full Powers in cases when transfer is with consent of the S.E. of other Circle to and from which transfer is made in the transfer outside the circle. 11. Accounts Clerks Engineer 12. Lower Division Clerks 13. Assistant Store Keeper 5. Executive Engineer When the transfer is within the division. (Reference : Regulation 3 (v))It has not been shown before this court that any amendment of the list printed at pages 152 to 169 or any order has been issued for delegation of all powers to the Secretary of the Board.A perusal of Item No. 8 of the list shows that the Secretary has been given power in respect of the staff in the Board Secretariat. The power of effecting transfer normally vests with the Superintending Engineer, if the transfer is within the circle and in case of transfer outside the Circle, with the consent of the Superintending Engineer of the other Circle. In case of all subordinate offices when transfer is from one Circle to another, the Chief Engineer has got full powers. 8. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the 279th meeting of the Board held on 23/24.10.1979 the Board decided that it would be in the interest of the Board to segregate the post of the Secretary and that of the Director of Personnel and by order dated 7.1.1980 passed by the Chairman of the Board and Accounts-cum-Finance Member, the powers of transfer which vested with the Secretary had been delegated to the Director of Personnel. Shri Sharma has produced copy of the office note. In this office note, it has been noticed that on appointment of Shri K.M. Sinha as Director, Personnel a question has arisen as to what power he has to exercise. It was clarified that by virtue of his appointment as Director of Personnel, the power as he was exercising as per delegation of powers to the Superintending Engineer shall not be curtailed. It was also decided that pending decision of the delegation of powers to the Director of Personnel, the Director of Personnel is to exercise the same powers as the Secretary would have done, if he acted also as Ex-officio Director Personnel so far as it related to the matters of Personnel branch. It was decided that Agenda note is to be prepared and submitted to the Board for delegation of powers and in the mean-time, the Director of Personnel was authorised to function as Head of the Department. Shri A.K. Sharma did not produce any document to show that this delegation had been ratified by the Board subsequently. 9. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the scheme of 1962 Ministerial Staff Regulations and 1964 Employees Service Regulations as also the decision of the Board taken in its 279th meeting and the office note of 7.1.1980, it is clearly revealed that 1962 Regulations no doubt speak of the Secretary being the Con- trolling Authority for the post of U.D.C., but 1%2 Regulations do not deal with the question of transfer of employees belonging to different categories. The provisions contained in these Regulations primarily deal with the strength of the staff, determination of vacancies, mode of recruitment, reservation, age, academic qualifications procedure for direct recruitment, procedure for promotion, probation, confirmation, seniority etc. As against this, there is a specific provision for transfer under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. The powers of various authorities as competent authorities have been specified in these provisions. Regulation 3(v) read with Regulation 15 and item 8 of List of powers clearly reveal that power of transfer of U.D.Cs. have been vested with different authorities of the Board. It is not possible to accept the contention of Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents that after issuance of the order dated 27.11.1974, the provisions contained in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations 1964 and particularly those contained in Regulation 3(v) read with item 8 of the list of powers and Regulation 15 must be treated as impliedly repealed. This argument of implied repeal may have carried some credibility if it could be shown that 1962 Regulations provide for transfer of the employees. There cannot be any dispute that the Secretary would be the competent authority for U.D.Cs. in respect of the various powers to be exercised under 1962 Regulations, but since no provision for transfer has been made under 1962 Regulations, it cannot be said that there has been a implied repeal of the provisions contained in Regulation 3(v), Regulation 15 read with item No. 8 of the list of powers of the competent authorities. In my view, for the purpose of effecting transfers, the competent authority would be one specified in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service Regulations 1964. If we look to these provisions, it is clearly revealed that the Secretary of the Board has also the powers of transfer in respect of staff in Board's Secretariat. If the Board intended to confer powers on the Secretary in respect of persons holding the posts in various ministerial categories or in any case that of U.D.C., certainly appropriate amendments would have been made in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. In the absence of any such amendment, it must be held that the Chief Engineer, is the only competent authority to effect transfer of Class III non-technical staff from one Circle to another Circle. 10. In the absence of any such amendment, it must be held that the Chief Engineer, is the only competent authority to effect transfer of Class III non-technical staff from one Circle to another Circle. 10. So far as the delegation of powers to the Director of Personnel is concerned, it must be said that when the Secretary himself did not have the power to effect transfer of ministerial employees other than those working in the Secretariat of the Board, the question of delegation of powers to the Director of Personnel must be considered as limited to those powers, which were exercised by the Secretary, namely, to effect transfer of the employees employed in the Secretariat of the Board. The delegation, even if the office note dated 7.1.80 has been approved by the Board, though there is no evidence to this effect, could at the best confer powers on the Director of Personnel, which were previously exercised by the Secretary in respect of the personnel branch. There is no delegation of powers.in favour of the Director, Personnel which were earlier exercised or which could lawfully be exercised by the Chief Engineer only. 11. In addition to the above, I do not find any provision either in the Regulations of 1962 or in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, which contains a power by which delegation/sub-delegation of power is permissible. The Board has authorised the Chairman and Accounts-cum-Finance Member to fill the post of Director, Personnel, but did not authorise the Chairman or Accounts-cum-Finance Member to delegate the powers to the Director, Personnel. Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 does not contain any such provision for delegation of powers. In any case, as already observed above, even if the delegation of powers is held to be permissible and it is held that the delegation has been ratified by the Board, even then so far as the present case is concerned, I am of the view that under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, the power of transfer could be exercised only by the Chief Engineer because there is a total absence of any provision regarding transfer under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations,1962. 12. No other point was urged by any of the parties. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 12. No other point was urged by any of the parties. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.7.1990 in so far as it relates to the transfer of the petitioner, is quashed. 14. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******