The Kerala High Court has dismissed a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge’s petition challenging the modification of disciplinary charges and the refusal to allow him to engage a lawyer to defend himself in the inquiry. Justice Gopinath P. held that the applicable service rules permit changes to charges during an ongoing inquiry and do not guarantee an unconditional right to legal representation.
Background
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging orders passed during disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
His challenge concerned two principal issues: the decision to modify the original charge memo after witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined, and the withdrawal of permission to engage a lawyer.
The petitioner argued that changing the charges at that stage could prejudice his defence. He also contended that he should be permitted to engage an advocate because the inquiry was being conducted by a High Court judge.
Justice Gopinath P. examined Rule 15(3), which authorises the inquiry officer to amend, alter or modify charges during disciplinary proceedings. The Court found no provision restricting this power to a particular stage of the inquiry.
The judgment observed:
"Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 15 of the 1960 Rules specifically authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the delinquent employee."
The Court also considered the request for legal representation under Rule 15(6). Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it explained that permission to engage a legal practitioner depends on the applicable rules and circumstances of the case.
The inquiry's presenting officer was a District Judge, while the petitioner held the rank of Additional District Judge. The petitioner had also obtained assistance from another judicial officer.
The Court noted:
"The petitioner, with the assistance of another officer in the cadre of District Judge, can very well defend those charges."
It further observed that the charges, although potentially serious, were not inherently complicated. In these circumstances, the Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with the inquiry officer's decision.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to quash either the modified charge memo or the orders denying the petitioner's request to engage an advocate.
However, it clarified that the petitioner could seek additional time to respond to the modified charges. He could also request the inquiry officer to recall and re-examine witnesses who had already testified.
The Court expressed no reason to believe that such requests would be denied.
Case Details
Case Title: XXX v. The Registrar (District Judiciary), High Court of Kerala & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 33217 of 2026
Judge: Justice Gopinath P.
Decision Date: 23 October 2026
