Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) IT is contended that impugned order of transfer has been passed mala fide and at the instance of District President of Ruling Party and my attention is drawn to letter dated 10.10.2012, Annexure 5 -A to the writ petition allegedly written by Pradeep Pandey to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur requesting for taking action against petitioner. However, neither any person has been impleaded by name against which mala fide is alleged nor any ground has been taken in the writ petition. Hence the said plea cannot be entertained at all.
(2.) IT is well settled that a person against whom plea of mala fide is taken shall be impleaded no nomine since plea of mala fide is not available against unnatural person. The Apex Court has gone to the extent that in absence of impleadment of a person eo nomine, against whom plea of mala fide is alleged, Court cannot not even entertain the plea of mala fide. The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, ( : AIR 1991 SC 1260 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222) in para 55 of the judgment, held: - - It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine 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. (Emphasis added)
(3.) IN : AIR 1996 SC 326, J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held: Further in the absence of impleadment of the...the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.;