Judge Can't Insist That He Must Be Permitted to Engage Lawyer To Defend Him In Disciplinary Proceedings: Kerala High Court
The petition before the Kerala High Court was filed by a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge, aggrieved by the issuance of a revised memo of charges during the course of disciplinary proceedings against him.
Justice Gopinath P., Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a District Judge cannot insist that he must be permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiring Authority.
The petition before the High Court was filed by a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge, aggrieved by the issuance of a revised memo of charges during the course of disciplinary proceedings being conducted against him in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
The Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. held, “In the facts of the present case, the charges against the petitioner may be serious. However, they are not complicated in themselves. The petitioner, with the assistance of another officer in the cadre of District Judge, can very well defend those charges. Though the petitioner in this case has raised a challenge to the order of the Inquiring Authority denying him the right to engage a legal practitioner before the enquiry is concluded (unlike in the facts of the case considered by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Pandey), it must be noted that in the facts of the present case, the order of the Inquiring Authority rejecting the request of the petitioner for engaging a legal practitioner was passed on 17.11.2025 and the petitioner had taken part in the proceedings thereafter, after seeking the assistance of another judicial officer of his choice. Therefore, I find that the petitioner cannot insist that he must be permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority.”
Advocate P. Martin Jose represented the Peititoner while Standing Counsel Shajna M. represented the Respondent.
Arguments
The petitioner claimed that, after examining some witnesses, including the complainant, the Inquiring Authority could not have issued a revised memo of charges to the petitioner. It was also contended that the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority ought to have been permitted.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 15 of the 1960 Rules authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the delinquent employee, and there is nothing in that Rule which would suggest that such amendment, alteration or modification to the memo of charges must be done at any particular stage of the enquiry. “In the absence of any challenge to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 15 of the 1960 Rules, I hold that the amendment, alteration or modification to the memo of charges cannot, in the facts of this case, be declared illegal in any manner”, it added.
The Bench also rejected the contention that the petitioner should have been permitted to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority. Reference was made to the judgment in Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University(2015), indicating that where the Inquiring Authority is a legally trained mind or a Judge, the denial of legal assistance to the charged employee would be unfair.
“In the facts of the present case, there is no dearth of legally trained minds in the enquiry in question. The Inquiring Authority is a Judge of this court. The Presenting Officer is an officer in the rank of District Judge. The delinquent employee is an officer in the rank of Additional District Judge. The delinquent officer has chosen another officer in the rank of District Judge to represent him in the proceedings”, it stated.
Dealing with the facts of the case, the Bench held the petitioner could not insist that he must be permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority.
Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench ordered, “However, it is made clear that if the petitioner requires any further time to reply to the modified/altered memo of charges, he may file an application before the Inquiring Authority for the same. Similarly, if the petitioner wishes to recall and examine any person who has already been examined, he may make a request for the same before the Inquiring Authority.”
Cause Title: A v. The Registrar (District Judiciary)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, Advocates P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Harikrishnan S., Anavadya Sanil Kumar, Anjali Krishna, Adarsh v. Manoj, Abhinav P. S.
Respondent: Standing Counsel Shajna M.