Incorrect designation and no specific role justified striking a respondent off the complaint.

A respondent was struck off where the complaint named him under an incorrect official designation and contained no specific allegation against him in the capacity he actually held. The Court noted that the pleadings targeted the Principal Secretary, PHED, and the Chief Secretary, while the respondent was serving as Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Mere presence in a meeting, without signature on the minutes or a pleaded role in the relevant decision-making process, was insufficient to continue him in the proceedings at that stage. He was directed to be removed from the array of parties and from the complaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether respondent No. 1, who was shown in the complaint with an incorrect official designation and against whom no specific allegation was made in that capacity, should be struck off from the array of parties.

Analysis: The complaint itself proceeded on the footing that the allegations concerned the Principal Secretary, PHED and the Chief Secretary, whereas respondent No. 1 was in fact serving as Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. The material placed before the Court did not disclose any specific role attributed to him in the capacity in which he was actually holding office. Mere presence in a meeting, without signature on the minutes and without a pleaded role in the relevant decision-making process, was held insufficient to justify continuing him as an in the proceedings at that stage.

Conclusion: Respondent No. 1 was directed to be struck off from the array of parties and from the complaint.

---