Employees acting in their official capacity for a corporate entity are neither necessary nor proper parties in a suit challenging employment termination, provided no personal relief is claimed against them and no privity of contract exists between the plaintiff and the employees.

JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) vide which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) moved by the respondents No.2 to 5 for deleting their names from the array of defendants in Civil Suit No.CS CJ 1846 of 2023 titled as ‘Rattan Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & others’, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, has been allowed.

2. It is submitted that plaintiff has impleaded defendants No.2, 3, 4 & 5 as a party in their capacity as the employees of the defendant No.1/company solely on the ground that the said defendants acted in accordance with the applicable service rules of defendant No.1 in performance of their duties. A perusal of the suit clearly reveals that no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against defendants No.2 to 5. Further, the dispute being raised by the plaintiff pertains to a private employment contract which has been executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their individual capacity. Thus no privity of contract exists between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 or defendant No.3 or defendant No.4 and 5 respectively. It is further submitted that defendants No.2 to 5 are neither a necessary nor property party in the present suit as no lis exists between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 in their individual capacity. By way of present suit, plaintiff has challenged the termination of his employment by defendant No.1 who alone has the authority to appoint or terminate any employee. As defendants No.2 to 5 are not employers of the plaintiff, no purpose shall be served by retaining the said defendants in the array of defendants in the present proceedings. Thus, the present suit is not maintainable against defendants No.2 to 5 and a prayer has been made for striking of the names of defendants No.2 to 5 from the array of the defendants.

3. Plaintiff in his reply to the application has submitted that present application has been filed by the defendants/applicants with the sole motive to cause delay and harassment. The applicants-defendants are necessary parties to the suit and their role has been well explained in the suit. The plaintiff has sufficient evidence against the applicants- defendants to establish their role and misuse of authority by them in ruining the career of the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 to 5 are in gainful employment of defendant No.1 but their acts against the plaintiff were with common intent to remove the plaintiff from job. They had not acted in accordance with service rules of defendant No.1. Applicants in collusion with each other framed the plaintiff in the misconduct which plaintiff never committed and same has never been proved on record but despite that the applicants misused their official position to settle their scores and grudges against the plaintiff. The role of the applicants has been well explained and the same needs to be proved on record during examination of the applicants-defendants. There may not be any privity of contract between the plaintiff and applicants directly but they being senior officials acted beyond jurisdiction to prove the alleged misconduct which the plaintiff never committed and as such, they are a necessary party to the suit. Defendant No.1 is a bank which is managed and controlled by its officials and amongst them are the defendants who misused their powers and