Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 18.05.2011 in a contemplated departmental inquiry. It has been challenged on the grounds that it is arbitrary, ex parte, unjustified, in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, collusive, mala fide etc. It is not the case of petitioner that the authority who has passed impugned order of suspension was not competent to place him under suspension or that under the rules petitioner could not have been suspended or that it is in violation of any statutory provision. Though in the grounds a vague allegation of mala fide is also made but in the narration of facts necessary pleadings to substantiate the plea of mala fide is absent. Besides, nobody has been impleaded eo nomine though it is well established that in order to level plea of mala fide a person against whom mala fide is pleaded must be impleaded by name.
(3.) IN State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held: It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.;