JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage. 2. The writ petition has been preferred as against the order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order of transfer of respondent Parbat Singh Champawat from Jodhpur to Bikaner. The respondent-employee is holding the post of Wool Marketing Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'WMDO' for short). Vide order dated 21.8.2010 his transfer was ordered. Initially, the order was assailed by way of filing writ application before this Court being CWP No. 8214/2010, which was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction vide order dated 16.12.2010. Thereafter, original application was preferred by the respondent-employee before the Tribunal. 3. The case set Up by the applicant-respondent-employee was that Government of India has issued a notification on 7.7.1987 establishing the Central Wool Development Board at Jodhpur specifying that Headquarter of the Board will be at Jodhpur. The post of WMDO held by the respondent is an isolated post at Jodhpur. It was further pointed that Wool Testing Centre was set up at Bikaner with creation of certain posts in July, 1993. It was further submitted that Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide order dated 25.10.1977 has banned the transfer of posts within an organisation without approval of the Ministry. The respondent-employee filed representation, but the same was not considered. It was also submitted that as the respondent was witness in crucial inquiry conducted by the CBI against the NGOs, the employer to protect the high and mighty persons, have transferred him to a place where no such equivalent post exists. As the post was not existing at Bikaner, the transfer could not have been ordered.In the reply filed by the petitioner-employer it was contended that order dated 25.7.1977 was issued by Director, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and not by the Finance Ministry. The post of WMDO is in the Board and that post has also been transferred by the competent authority from Jodhpur to Bikaner. The matter was considered by the Executive Committee and thereafter, by the governing body of the Board and it was decided to transfer the post of WMDO to Bikaner, which is the biggest wool Mandi in Asia. The post of WMDO is in the Board and that post has also been transferred by the competent authority from Jodhpur to Bikaner. The matter was considered by the Executive Committee and thereafter, by the governing body of the Board and it was decided to transfer the post of WMDO to Bikaner, which is the biggest wool Mandi in Asia. In order to achieve marketing in all wool producing States, the Ministry of Textile approved a new scheme and sanctioned "Revolving Fund for Marketing of Raw Wool" on 29.3.2010. Nearly 75% of the total carpet grade woolen yarn is produced at Bikaner and by placing a Wool Marketing Officer at Bikaner will not only help the poor Sheep Breeders/Wool Groweres, but will also help in marketing of raw wool in the biggest Woolen Mandi of Asia. Thus, the transfer has been ordered alongwith the post. Chairman has passed the appropriate order. 4. Not only that, but the governing body has approved the transfer of the post from Jodhpur to Bikaner. The clarification was also asked from Ministry of Textile whether the Chairman, CWDB can transfer an officer/staff from one place to another and Ministry clarified on 23.9.2010 that Chairman is competent to transfer officer/staff within the Board as per functional requirement. Thus, there was no justification in the contention that no post of WMDO is available at Bikaner where the respondent-employee had been transferred. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 21.8.2010 has quashed the transfer order on the ground that though there is requirement of the services of the respondent-employee at Bikaner, but his transfer is permissible only when entire Board is transferred. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, this petition has been preferred. 6. Shri Rakesh Arora learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer submitted that there is Wool Testing Centre at Bikaner established by the Ministry of Textile way back in the year 1993, which is the biggest Mandi of wool in the Asia. It was not the case of diversion of post for any other purpose or work, thus, the office memorandum issued by the Government of India on 25.10.1997 was not attracted in the instant case. The Board has also taken a decision to transfer the post of WMDO. The transfer order has been passed with the approval of the Chairman. It was not the case of diversion of post for any other purpose or work, thus, the office memorandum issued by the Government of India on 25.10.1997 was not attracted in the instant case. The Board has also taken a decision to transfer the post of WMDO. The transfer order has been passed with the approval of the Chairman. The post has also been transferred under the approval of the Chairman. Merely on the ground that the respondent was witness in the CBI investigation in which 250 witnesses were there in the investigation made against the NGOs, it could not be said that the order suffers with malice. The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while directing for considering the transfer of the Board itself from Jodhpur to Bikaner in case the respondent-employee was to be transferred to Bikaner. The approach of the Tribunal was wholly unjustified and such observations/directions for considering the transfer of the Board itself from Jodhpur to Bikaner could not have been made by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel Shri P.S. Bhati appearing for the respondent-employee submitted that in view of the order dated 25.10.1977 of Government of India, the prior permission should have been obtained at the appropriate level before effecting transfer of the respondent-employee from Jodhpur to Bikaner alongwith post. The transfer order was passed earlier in point of time and, thereafter, for transferring the post, approval of the Chairman had been obtained. Thus, as on the date on which the transfer order was passed, there was no post of WMDO at Bikaner. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that for transferring the post there was no resolution of the Executive Committee as the transfer of the post was not in the agenda of the Executive Committee. Thus, the decision of the governing body and Executive Committee are non-est. At Jodhpur, the Board was established for the purpose that there are nearby Wool Mandis in the catchment area of Jaisalmer and Barmer etc. Consequently, the services of the respondent were required at Jodhpur and therefore, the transfer of the respondent-employee was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. It suffers with malice inasmuch as he has been victimised as he is a witness in a pending CBI case against NGOs and therefore, the employer to protect the high and mighty persons has transferred the respondent-employee because the evidence of the respondent-employee is crucial in the case. It suffers with malice inasmuch as he has been victimised as he is a witness in a pending CBI case against NGOs and therefore, the employer to protect the high and mighty persons has transferred the respondent-employee because the evidence of the respondent-employee is crucial in the case. He has further relied upon the functions and power of the Board in which creation of all pots is with the approval of the Government of India. 8. The first question for consideration is whether the order of transfer alongwith the post is unauthorized? Shri P.S. Bhati learned counsel for the respondent-employee has relied upon the rules and regulations of the Board of the Central Woolen Development Board in which governing body has the power to recommend creation of all the posts irrespective of scales of pay for approval by the Government of India. However, to make the appointments thereto in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board, the governing body is competent. With respect to the transfer, it has been clarified by the Government of India vide its communication dated 23.9.2010 that Ministry agrees with ED's contention that Chairman is competent to transfer officer/staff within the Board, as per functional requirement and justification. The Rule 10 of Wool Development Board (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1994' for short) also provides that a person recruited to any post under the Board shall be liable for posting anywhere in India or abroad. Rule 10 is quoted below : "10. Liability for transfer. - A person recruited to any post under the Board shall be liable for posting anywhere in India or abroad." 9. The decision of the 33rd and 34th meetings of the Executive Committee of CWDB held on 25.6.2010 and 30.7.2010 came up for consideration of the governing body of the Board in the meeting dated 30.8.2010 held at Jodhpur and the minutes were approved. The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee, which has been approved by the Board in the meeting dated 30.8.2010 has been filed as Annex.9 to the petition, which is quoted below: "(I) ED, CWDB stated that fund have been sanctioned to all wool producing States for procurement of raw wool. Rajasthan is one of the most wool producing State in India but presently there is no Govt. Agency for marketing of raw wool. Rajasthan is one of the most wool producing State in India but presently there is no Govt. Agency for marketing of raw wool. Matter have been taken up with the Rajasthan Khadi Board also but till date no project proposal has been received. ED, CWDB also stated that Bikaner is biggest Wool Mandi in India and CWDB has its own office at Bikaner and CWDB have experienced marketing officers (Wool Marketing Development Officers and Deputy Marketing Officer) and possibility of Marketing may be explored by transferring one officer (WMDO) along with post from Board's Jodhpur office to Bikaner office in association with any suitable Govt. Agency/Organization/Corporation to provide remunerative returns of wool to farmers and protect them from exploitation from middlemen. It was also suggested that all Implementing Agencies under SWIS should also implement Grading and Marketing components, effectively in project areas. ED, CWDB has made a point for provision of some funds for marketing of Angora wool under Revolving Fund in favour of ongoing implementing agencies of Angora projects." 10. It is apparent from the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee decided on 25.6.2010 and 30.7.2010 that Bikaner is biggest Wool Mandi in India and CWDB has it own office at Bikaner and CWDB has experienced marketing officers i.e., Wool Marketing Development Officers and Deputy Marketing Officer and possibility of Marketing may be explored by transferring one officer (WMDO) along with post from Board's Jodhpur office to Bikaner office in association with any suitable Government Agency/Organization/Corporation. No doubt about it that transfer may not be directly under the consideration, but what was under consideration was a new project. The said proposal was before the Executive Committee and while considering Bikaner the biggest Wool Mandi in Asia, for exploring the possibility of marketing, transfer of the respondent-employee with the post was decided. Thus, it was permissible to Executive Committee to pass such a resolution to start new projects to transfer WMDO with post, which decision has been approved by the governing body of the Board. After the said resolution of the Executive Committee, transfer order dated 21.8.2010 (Annex. 1) was passed by the Executive Director. The same is reproduced as under: "No. CWDB/Trans.&post/2010/2648-2653 dated 21.8.2010 Office Order Shri Parbat Singh Champawat, Wool Marketing Development Officer is hereby transferred from Central Wool Development Board, Jodhpur office to Wool Testing Center, Rani Bazar, Industrial Area, Bikaner (Raj.) with immediate effect. 1) was passed by the Executive Director. The same is reproduced as under: "No. CWDB/Trans.&post/2010/2648-2653 dated 21.8.2010 Office Order Shri Parbat Singh Champawat, Wool Marketing Development Officer is hereby transferred from Central Wool Development Board, Jodhpur office to Wool Testing Center, Rani Bazar, Industrial Area, Bikaner (Raj.) with immediate effect. He is released from Central Wool Development Board, Jodhpur on 21.8.2010 (afternoon) to join the Wool Testing Centre, Bikaner. He will be entitled for Transfer TA as per Rules. This issue is approved on file No. CWDB/Trans&Post/2010/by competent authority, i.e., Vice Chairman, CWDB and Chairman, CWDB. Sd/- Executive Director No. CWDB/Trans&post/2010/dated 21.8.2010 1) Shri Sagar Rayka, Chairman, Central Wool Development Board, Jodhpur 2) Shri S.S. Gupta, Vice Chairman, CWDB and JS, MOT, Ministry of Textile, Govt, of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 3) Shri Parbat Singh Champawat, Wool Marketing Development Officer, Central Wool Development Board, Jodhpur with a direction to join Wool Testing Centre, Bikaner on 23.8.2010 positively 4) DMM/A, CWDB, Jodhpur 5) All staff for necessary compliance Sd/- Executing Director." 11. It is apparent from the aforesaid order that the order has been issued after approval by Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Board and for the purpose of transferring the post also, we find on record that matter was placed before the Chairman of the Board on 30.8.2010 as apparent from the Annex. 8 to the petition. The Chairman has sanctioned the proposal of Executive Director to transferring the post of WMDO from Jodhpur to Bikaner. No doubt about it, this approval for transferring the post was granted after 10 days. We are of the opinion that the transfer cannot be rendered illegal as immediately thereafter the post has also been shifted from Jodhpur to Bikaner which was necessary to be shifted. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 25.10.1977 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The same is quoted as under: "No. F14(14)-E (Board)/77 Government of India (Department of Expenditure) New Delhi, 25.10.1977 Office Memorandum Subject : Transfer of posts within an organization-application of boa orders. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 25.10.1977 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The same is quoted as under: "No. F14(14)-E (Board)/77 Government of India (Department of Expenditure) New Delhi, 25.10.1977 Office Memorandum Subject : Transfer of posts within an organization-application of boa orders. The undersigned is directed to say that instances have come to notice when a post sanctioned for a specific purpose in an organisation is diverted for another purpose at the same or different station and/or utilised as a stand by to accommodate an officer awaiting posting orders or to make use of the services of an officer for some special item of work etc. Such diversion of posts obviously leads to the conclusion that the purpose for which the post was originally created has ceased to exist and diversion is effected to cope with some new item of work, notwithstanding the fact that such arrangement of same cadre/organization and/or at the same or different stations. It has been decided that such cases of diversion/transfer/adjustment of posts would amount to creating new posts and therefore, attract the ban orders at present in force on creation of fresh posts - vide Ministry's O.M. No. F. 14(4)-E(Coord)/77 dated 27.5.1977 - and prior clearance should be obtained at the appropriate level before resorting to such a practice. Sd/- Joint Secretary to the Govt, of India." 13. It is apparent from the aforesaid Office Memorandum that when the post is sanctioned for specific purpose in an organisation is "diverted for another purpose" at the same or different station and/or utilised as a stand by to accommodate an officer awaiting posting orders or to make use of the services of an officer for some special item of work etc. In the aforesaid contingencies, the diversion of the post has been banned. In the instant case, it is not that post has been diverted for another purpose at the same or different station. It is not being utilised to accommodate the officer awaiting posting order or to make use of the services of an officer for some special item of work etc. The purpose remains the same and the post has not been diverted for another purpose. Consequently, the aforesaid Office Memorandum is of no utility to the cause espoused by the applicant-respondent in the instant case. The purpose remains the same and the post has not been diverted for another purpose. Consequently, the aforesaid Office Memorandum is of no utility to the cause espoused by the applicant-respondent in the instant case. Merely by the fact that post is created with the approval of the Government of India, we find that when Chairman has power to transfer then it is open to the governing body to exercise general control and issue such directions for the efficient management and administration of the Board as may be necessary as provided in functions and powers specified in the Rules and Regulations of the Central Wool Development Board. The relevant portion thereof is quoted as under: "Functions and Powers : A. The Governing Body shall have the following powers and functions, namely to : 1. Observe the provisions of the Memorandum of Association, these rules and such instructions of Government of India, as may be issued from time to time. 2. Exercise general control and issue such directions for the efficient management and administration of the affairs of the Board as may be necessary; 3. Recommend creation of all posts irrespective of scales of pay for approval by the Government of India and make appointments thereto in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. 4. Nominate members of the Executive Committee in accordance with rules; 5. Approve the annual budge of the Board; 6. Consider and approve the annual report of the Board; 7. Consider the balance sheet and audited accounts of the Board; 8. Add and amend the Rules of the Board; 9. Frame bye-laws, rules, regulations etc. not inconsistent with these rules, and the Memorandum of Association for the management, administration and regulation of the business of the Board for the furtherance of its objects; 10. To perform such other functions as are entrusted to it under these rules; 11. The Governing Body may be resolution delegate to its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, to any other Committee, or to the Executive Director or to any other officer of the Board, such of its powers for the conduct of business as it may deem fit." 14. Thus, the matter being in the realm of the policy of the Board it was for the executive committee and the Board to take a decision to transfer the post. 15. Thus, the matter being in the realm of the policy of the Board it was for the executive committee and the Board to take a decision to transfer the post. 15. In our opinion, the Tribunal has approached the case as if the entire transfer of the Board was necessary from Jodhpur to Bikaner and has centrally focused the decision on this issue alone. There was no jurisdiction with the Tribunal to advise the Ministry to transfer the Board itself from Jodhpur. Therefore, the entire approach of the Tribunal has been vitiated. It was open for the employer to transfer the employee alongwith the post considering the importance of Bikaner and to explore the possibility as decided by the executive committee and Board and the orders have been passed by the competent authority. The decision of the executive committee has also been approved by the governing body. 16. Coming to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the order suffers with malice, we are of the considered opinion that allegation of malice is not against any individual, the following averment is made in para No. 4.9 of the OA : "4.9 That the applicant is leading crucial evidence in the pending CBI cases against the NGOs and therefore is being prejudiced by the respondents to protect the high and mighty. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant's evidence is very crucial in these cases to nail down the NGOs and corrupt officials. A copy of the CBI summons are annexed herewith an marked as Annexure A-7 collectively." 17. A bare reading of the aforesaid pleading makes it clear that no malice is alleged against any individual. None has been impleaded as party. In case of allegation of malice of facts, it was necessary not only to name the person, but to implead him also. We cannot assume that the respondent was victimised as there were as much as 250 witnesses in the investigation made by the CBI against the NGOs and that too as early as in January, 2009 the investigation was commenced and summon was issued and the order has been passed in August, 2010. Thus, the respondent-employee has measurably failed to make any case of malice on the basis of his being witness in the aforesaid case. 18. Thus, the respondent-employee has measurably failed to make any case of malice on the basis of his being witness in the aforesaid case. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to quash the order passed by the Tribunal. The observation of the Tribunal to transfer the Board itself from Jodhpur to Bikaner is also quashed. The transfer order alongwith the post of the applicant-respondent-employee could not be said to be illegal. 19. Hence, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-employer is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur is quashed. No costs.Writ petition allowed. *******