Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) WRIT petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 7.12.2011. Learned Counsel for petitioner could not show that the impugned order of suspension is contrary to any statutory provision or has been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. However, he contended that impugned order of suspension does not show that it has been passed in a pending or contemplated departmental enquiry relying on the judgment of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) Vs. Chief Medical Officer & others : 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057.
(2.) HOWEVER , I find no substance in the submission. Second para of the impugned order of suspension clearly mentions that act/allegations need to be enquired against the petitioner. It is a strong matter of enquiry against him. It shows that the departmental enquiry is contemplated. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed due to mala fide of Executive Engineer against whom petitioner has made a complaint. However, no person eo nomine has been impleaded in the present case. It is well settled that the plea of mala fide shall not be entertained by Court unless the person against whom allegation of mala fide is made is impleaded eo nomine.
(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.;