JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The appellants are respondents 2 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.33869 of 2024, which was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-writ petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P15 communication dated 20.09.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent-Director, Institute of Human Resources Development, whereby the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P14 representation dated 05.08.2024 for issuing a copy of the Audit Reports stands rejected, for the reasons stated therein. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the relevant pages of the audit report (other than Ext.P12) relied upon while issuing Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations, to the petitioner; or in the alternative, to permit any Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or an employee under the 2nd respondent to take extracts of those audit objections, to offer the explanation of the petitioner to Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations, thereby enabling the petitioner to pursue his duties and responsibilities as Dean (Academic) and Dean (Research) of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. 2. On 27.09.2024, when W.P.(C)No.33869 of 2024 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same by the impugned Judgment. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus; “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.P14 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.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-respondents 2 and 4 are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-respondents 2 and 4, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent-State. 5. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-respondents 2 and 4, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent-State. 5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether the direction contained in the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the 2nd appellant herein has been directed to make available to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner copy of the relevant pages of the Audit Reports, as sought for in Ext.P14 request dated 05.08.2024, in order to submit reply to Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations, warrants interference in this writ appeal. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-respondents 2 and 4 and also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would place reliance on the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. 7. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is that, in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules, a Government Servant who is facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled only to peruse or take extract from the records pertaining to the case, for the purpose of preparing his written statement, and in such circumstance, the learned Single Judge went wrong in issuing the direction contained in the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would contend that in the absence of any reason stated in Ext.P15 for refusing to give copy of the Audit Reports, as sought for in Ext.P14 request, the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this writ appeal. 9. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would contend that in the absence of any reason stated in Ext.P15 for refusing to give copy of the Audit Reports, as sought for in Ext.P14 request, the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this writ appeal. 9. Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, reads thus; “(2)(a) Whenever a complaint is received, or on consideration of the report of an investigation, or for other reasons, the disciplinary authority of the appointing authority or any other authority empowered by Government in this behalf is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for taking action against a Government servant, such authority shall frame definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the Government servant together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The accused Government servants shall be required to submit within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. The Government servant may on his request be permitted to peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case for the purpose of preparing his written statement; provided that the disciplinary or other authority referred to above may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse him such access, if in its opinion such records are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. After the written statement is received or if no such statement is received within the time allowed, the authority referred to above may, if it is satisfied that a formal enquiry should be held into the conduct of the Government servant, forward the record of the case to the authority or officer referred to in clause (b) and order that a formal enquiry may be conducted.” (underlines supplied) 10. A reading of the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules would make it explicitly clear that a Government Servant, who is required to submit a written statement of defence to the charges levelled against him, may on his request be permitted by the disciplinary authority, to peruse or take extract from the records pertaining to the case for the purpose of preparing his written statement. The said provision also empowers the disciplinary authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse the Government Servant such access, if in its opinion such records are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. The recording of reasons in writing by the disciplinary authority is required only in a case where the Government Servant is refused permission to peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case, on the ground that such records are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. When the entitlement of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, as per the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules, is only to peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case for the purposes of preparing his written statement, he cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant to issue copy of the Audit Reports, since no mandamus can be issued directing the 2nd appellant to do something which is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Rule 15 of the said Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in issuing the impugned direction in the judgment dated 27.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.33869 of 2024, by directing the 2nd appellant to make available to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner copy of the relevant pages of the audit reports. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 27.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33869 of 2024, thereby dismissing that writ petition, as the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not legally entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 27.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33869 of 2024, thereby dismissing that writ petition, as the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not legally entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. However, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is granted two weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to submit written submission to Ext.P13 memo of charges and statement of allegations.