Suhaib M. v. Registrar (District Judiciary), High Court of Kerala & Others

Held

1. Modification of charges at any stage. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the 1960 Rules specifically authorises the Inquiring Authority to amend, alter or modify the charges framed against a delinquent employee. Nothing in the Rule requires that such amendment, alteration or modification be made at any particular stage of the enquiry. In the absence of any challenge to Rule 15(3), modification of the memo of charges after several witnesses (including the complainant) had been examined cannot be declared illegal. [Para 5]

2. No right to a legal practitioner on these facts. Though Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University indicate that denial of legal assistance may be unfair where the delinquent is pitted against a legally trained mind, the ratio of Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh governs a case such as the present one. Rule 14(8) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 considered there is in pari materia with Rule 15(6) of the 1960 Rules. A serving Judge acting as Presenting Officer is not a “legal practitioner”, and the delinquent judicial officer may take the assistance of another judicial officer of his choice. [Paras 6–8]

3. No prejudice shown. Here the Inquiring Authority is a Judge of the High Court, the Presenting Officer is a District Judge, and the petitioner (an Additional District Judge) has chosen another officer of the rank of District Judge to represent him. The charges, though serious, are not complicated in themselves, and the petitioner can defend them with that assistance. The order rejecting his request (17.11.2025) was followed by his participation in the enquiry with the assistance of a judicial officer of his choice. He cannot insist on being permitted to engage a legal practitioner. [Para 8]