1. A judicial officer challenges the modification of disciplinary charges during ongoing proceedings and the denial of legal representation, citing prejudice under civil services regulations. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
MR.SUHAIB M – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY) – Respondent
WP(C) 33217/2026
Important Points
Disciplinary authorities may modify charges at any stage of an enquiry under relevant service rules. Additionally, a serving judicial officer is not a 'legal practitioner'; thus, their role as a presenting officer does not entitle a delinquent officer to legal representation if assisted by a peer judicial officer.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960: R.15(3)
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957: R.15(5)
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966: R.14(8)
Advocates Act, 1961: S.2(1)(i)
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879: S.3
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957: R.15(5)
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966: R.14(8)
Advocates Act, 1961: S.2(1)(i)
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879: S.3
Headnote
(A) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 - Rule 15(3) and 15(6) - Disciplinary proceedings - Amendment of charges - Right to legal representation - Modification of memo of charges - Whether charges can be modified after examination of witnesses - Whether a delinquent officer is entitled to a legal practitioner when the presenting officer is a judicial officer.
(B) Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules specifically authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the delinquent employee at any stage during the course of the enquiry. In the absence of a specific time restriction in the rules, such modification after certain witnesses have been examined cannot be declared illegal. (Para 5)
(C) The expression "legal practitioner" as defined under the Advocates Act, 1961, does not include a serving judge. When the presenting officer is a judicial officer of similar professional qualification to the delinquent, and the delinquent is assisted by another judicial officer, the denial of a legal practitioner does not violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 18-21)
Facts of the case:
A serving judicial officer facing disciplinary proceedings challenged the issuance of a modified memo of charges after several witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined. The officer also challenged the withdrawal of permission to engage a lawyer for representation in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority.
Findings of Court:
The modification of charges is permissible at any stage under Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules, and the petitioner could recall witnesses if necessary. The request for legal representation was rejected because the presenting officer, being a judicial officer, is not a "legal practitioner" under the law, and the petitioner was sufficiently equipped to defend himself with the assistance of a peer judicial officer.
Issues: (i) Whether the issuance of a revised memo of charges during disciplinary proceedings after the examination of witnesses is sustainable in law; (ii) Whether the delinquent officer is entitled to engage a legal practitioner when the inquiring authority and presenting officer are judicial officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Inquiring Authority has the statutory power to modify charges at any stage of the enquiry. Furthermore, a serving judge does not constitute a "legal practitioner"; consequently, the appointment of a judicial officer as a presenting officer does not entitle the delinquent employee to legal representation, provided the delinquent is not prejudiced and has access to similar professional assistance.
Result: The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.
(B) Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules specifically authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the delinquent employee at any stage during the course of the enquiry. In the absence of a specific time restriction in the rules, such modification after certain witnesses have been examined cannot be declared illegal. (Para 5)
(C) The expression "legal practitioner" as defined under the Advocates Act, 1961, does not include a serving judge. When the presenting officer is a judicial officer of similar professional qualification to the delinquent, and the delinquent is assisted by another judicial officer, the denial of a legal practitioner does not violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 18-21)
Facts of the case:
A serving judicial officer facing disciplinary proceedings challenged the issuance of a modified memo of charges after several witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined. The officer also challenged the withdrawal of permission to engage a lawyer for representation in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority.
Findings of Court:
The modification of charges is permissible at any stage under Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules, and the petitioner could recall witnesses if necessary. The request for legal representation was rejected because the presenting officer, being a judicial officer, is not a "legal practitioner" under the law, and the petitioner was sufficiently equipped to defend himself with the assistance of a peer judicial officer.
Issues: (i) Whether the issuance of a revised memo of charges during disciplinary proceedings after the examination of witnesses is sustainable in law; (ii) Whether the delinquent officer is entitled to engage a legal practitioner when the inquiring authority and presenting officer are judicial officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Inquiring Authority has the statutory power to modify charges at any stage of the enquiry. Furthermore, a serving judge does not constitute a "legal practitioner"; consequently, the appointment of a judicial officer as a presenting officer does not entitle the delinquent employee to legal representation, provided the delinquent is not prejudiced and has access to similar professional assistance.
Result: The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: 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., S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
For the Respondents: Shajna M.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: 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., S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
For the Respondents: Shajna M.
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner claims prejudice from late charge modification and an unfair denial of legal counsel, while respondents assert inherent authority to amend charges and reject legal representation requests. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court finds that disciplinary rules empower authorities to modify charges at any stage and that judicial officers can effectively represent themselves or use other service colleagues. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
4. Under departmental rules, inquiries may modify charges at any stage without prejudice, provided the delinquent is offered a fair opportunity to respond and recall witnesses. (Para 5 )
5. Does an inquiring authority possess the power to modify or alter charges mid-enquiry?
Yes, specifically under Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules, the authority has the power to amend, alter, or modify charges at any stage of the enquiry without temporal restrictions. (Para 5 )
6. Is a judicial officer entitled to legal representation during departmental disciplinary proceedings?
No, unless authorized by specific exceptions, the petitioner cannot claim an absolute right to legal representation, especially when the authorities and the presenting officer are legally trained peers, preventing prejudice. (Para 8 )
7. Does a serving judge fall under the definition of a legal practitioner for disciplinary representation?
No, a serving judge is not a legal practitioner as defined under the Advocates Act. Acting as a presenter does not grant the delinquent a corresponding right to engage an advocate. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a serving Additional District and Sessions Judge, is before this court contending that 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1960 Rules’) cannot be sustained in law. He contends that, after examining some witnesses, including the complainant, the Inquiring Authority could not have issued a revised memo of charges to the petitioner. It is also contended that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Inquiring Authority ought to have been permitted. It is stated that though the Inquiring Authority, initially, permitted the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer, subsequently, and on an application by the Presenting Officer, the permission to engage a lawyer was withdrawn. The petitioner is thus before this court praying inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P13 (the order recalling the proceedings permitting the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent him in the disciplinary proceedings), Ext.P15 order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings, Ext.P18 proceedings of the Inquiring Authority finding that the memo of charges had to be modified and Ext.P19 modified memo of charges issued to him. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent (Inquiring Authority) to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the memo of charges originally issued to the petitioner, in accordance with the law.
2. A reference to the allegations that resulted in the disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the petitioner and the response of the petitioner to those allegations are not germane to the determination of the questions arising for consideration in this case, as the questions raised are purely questions of law and the allegations raised against the petitioner and his response to those allegations are not relevant to answer those issues of law. Thus, there will be no reference to such facts in this judgment.
3. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on the instructions of Adv. Martin Jose, inter alia, contends that the act of the Inquiring Authority in choosing to issue a modified/altered memo of charges cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that, though the provisions of Rule 15(3) of the 1960 Rules permit the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed during the course of an enquiry, such amendment/alteration or modification of the memo of charges could not have been made after several witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined in the disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that, if the memo of charges is permitted to be modified or altered after several witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined, the petitioner will be put to serious prejudice, injury, and hardship. It is submitted that the memo of charges now issued to the petitioner in modification of the earlier memo of charges practically alters the entire case against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred an application to engage a lawyer to represent him in the enquiry proceedings and the Inquiring Authority had permitted the same on 02.08.2025. It is submitted that, thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were advanced from 15.08.2025 to 06.08.2025 for consideration of an application preferred by the Presenting Officer to recall the proceedings dated 02.08.2025 permitting the petitioner to engage a lawyer and thereafter, by order marked as Ext.P15, the Inquiring Authority rejected the application for engaging a lawyer of the choice of the petitioner to represent him in the proceedings. It is submitted that, though the petitioner has requested and
