Kerala HC Upholds Denial Of Lawyer To Additional District Judge In Disciplinary Inquiry, Citing Assistance From District Judge Colleague In This Case

The petitioner, a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged disciplinary proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

During the enquiry, after witnesses had been examined, the Inquiring Authority directed that the charges be modified and a revised memo of charges was issued.

The petitioner also challenged the refusal to allow him to engage a lawyer, although he was permitted to be assisted by another judicial officer.

He sought, among other reliefs, to quash the orders concerning legal representation and the revised charges.

Rule 15(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify charges during an enquiry; the Court found no restriction in the Rule requiring this to be done at a particular stage.

Rule 15(6) permits a Government servant to be assisted by another Government servant and restricts engagement of a legal practitioner, subject to the Rule’s stated exceptions.

In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124, and Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University, (2015) 5 SCC 549, the Supreme Court recognised that denial of legal assistance may be unfair where the employee faces a legally trained representative or the enquiry officer is a legal practitioner.

However, Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 11 SCC 500, held that the right to legal representation under a comparable rule is not absolute, and that fairness and prejudice must be assessed in the circumstances of the case.

The Court held that Rule 15(3) contains no limitation on the stage at which charges may be modified and, since the Rule itself was not challenged, the amendment could not be held unlawful merely because witnesses had already testified.

Any resulting prejudice could be addressed by seeking additional time to respond to the revised charges or by requesting that previously examined witnesses be recalled.

On legal representation, the Court applied Dinesh Chandra Pandey: the Presenting Officer and Inquiring Authority were judicial officers, and the petitioner, himself an Additional District Judge, had obtained assistance from another District Judge.

The charges, though serious, were not considered inherently complex, and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry after the request for a lawyer was refused.

The Court therefore found no sufficient basis to require permission for legal representation.

It clarified that the petitioner could apply to the Inquiring Authority for further time to answer the modified charges and could seek to recall and examine any witness already examined.