JUDGMENT : (ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.) The petitioner is at present working as the Dean (Academic) of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the disciplinary proceedings now initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P12 and P13 by the 2nd respondent, in respect of certain irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner, while he was acting as the Principal of the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara. 2. The aforesaid proceedings are initiated on the basis of an internal audit report and the relevant details of the same are specified in Ext.P12. Ext.P13 is the Memo of Charges issued to the petitioner and he is asked to submit the reply to the same. As per Ext.P14, the petitioner requested the copy of the internal audit report relied on by the 2nd respondent, to enable the petitioner to submit a reply to the memo of charges and the statement of allegations as evidenced by Ext.P13. However the same was rejected as per Ext.P15, mainly on the reason that the petitioner does not have an absolute right to be issued with a copy of the said report and his right is confined to have a perusal of the same. The time limit originally fixed for having perusal of the same was also extended for five days as per the said order. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the same, and by seeking the following reliefs. 1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the relevant pages of audit report, (if any other than Ext.P12), relied upon by the 2nd respondent, for the issuance of Ext. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the same, and by seeking the following reliefs. 1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the relevant pages of audit report, (if any other than Ext.P12), relied upon by the 2nd respondent, for the issuance of Ext. P13 Memo of Charges and Statement of Allegations, to the petitioner or in the alternative, permit any Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or employee under the 2nd respondent, to get the extracts of those audit objections, to offer the explanation of the petitioner to Ext.P13, while enabling the petitioner to pursue his duties and responsibilities as Dean (Academic) and Dean (Research) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, forthwith; ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the operation and all further proceedings In pursuance to Ext.P15; iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs iv) To dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language. 3. Heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4. Considering the nature of reliefs sought, I do not find any necessity to issue notice to the 3rd respondent. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the relevant portion of the internal audit report referred to in Ext.P12 and P13 is to be given to the petitioner. Of course the specific request made by the petitioner was declined as per Ext.P 14 issued by the 2nd respondent, by citing the rules in KCS (CC and A), Rules, 1960. It was observed that, the petitioner does not have an absolute right to seek for the copies of the same. Here in this case, it is evident from the records that, the enquiry was initiated mainly on the basis of the findings in the internal audit enquiry which is not a disputed fact. Certain portions of the same is already extracted in Ext.P12 and the apprehension of the petitioner is that, during the course of enquiry, the portions which were not referred to in Ext.P12 may also to be relied on by the authorities concerned. 5. Certain portions of the same is already extracted in Ext.P12 and the apprehension of the petitioner is that, during the course of enquiry, the portions which were not referred to in Ext.P12 may also to be relied on by the authorities concerned. 5. As far as the furnishing the said copies to the petitioner is concerned, it can only be treated as a requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice. Since it is evident that the 2nd respondent is proposing to rely upon the audit report, it is only proper that the petitioner be given the copies of the relevant pages, where there is reference of the petitioner, so as to enable him to prepare a proper reply in response to the findings / observations against the petitioner, in the said report. If such an opportunity is not granted to the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be treated as the one in compliance with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the Ext.P15 has to be interfered with. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P15 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to make available the copy of the relevant pages where the reference of the petitioner is made, to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the petitioner shall submit a reply to the Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations, within a further period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the said copies. Till such time the further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13 shall be kept in abeyance.