ORDER : 1. Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 1 to 5. 2. The petitioner, Lab Technician GR-II on contract basis, PHC, Palutlapenta, Prakasam District, filed the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice vide Rc.No. 891-1/E6/2024, dated 25.09.2024 (Ex.P.1), issued by the 5th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Lab Technician GR-II on a contract basis vide Rc. No. 1449/G1/2022, dated 11.10.2022 in pursuance of notification No. 01/2022 dated 06.08.2022. A complaint was made against the petitioner’s apprenticeship training certificate. The 2nd respondent directed an inquiry. The petitioner attended the inquiry and filed a statement of defense. Pending the same, a show cause notice was issued without furnishing the requisite documents. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, would submit that writ petition filed, impugning the show cause notice, per se, is not maintainable. 5. Thus, as seen from Ex.P.1, before the issuance of show cause notice, an inquiry regarding the genuineness of the apprenticeship training certificate submitted by the petitioner, seems, conducted and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Without furnishing the report of the inquiry, a show-cause notice dated 25.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner and the same was received by the petitioner on 18.10.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, would contend that unless the requisite documents furnished to the petitioner enable the petitioner to submit a proper explanation, the petitioner may not be able to meet the allegations made in the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, it was specifically mentioned the inquiry conducted regarding a fake apprenticeship training certificate submitted by the petitioner. 7. It is trite law that an employee, served with show cause notice, should be given a reasonable opportunity to submit an explanation. The reasonable opportunity should not be an empty formality. Unless the delinquent is informed about the imputations and made available with the relevant material, it is very difficult to submit a proper explanation. The course adopted is against the principles of natural justice. Disclosure of relevant information would meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Takano vs. SEBI, (2022) 8 SCC 162 observed as follows: “29. The course adopted is against the principles of natural justice. Disclosure of relevant information would meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Takano vs. SEBI, (2022) 8 SCC 162 observed as follows: “29. The purpose of disclosure of information is not merely individualistic, that is to prevent errors in the verdict but is also towards fulfilling the larger institutional purpose of fair trial and transparency. Since the purpose of disclosure of information targets both the outcome (reliability) and the process (fair trial and transparency), it would be insufficient if only the material relied on is disclosed. Such a rule of disclosure, only holds nexus to the outcome and not the process. Therefore, as a default rule, all relevant material must be disclosed.” 9. Concerning furnishing the inquiry report in departmental proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 observed as follows: “18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.” 10. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed in ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 reads as follows: “30 [i] Since the denial of the report of the enquiry officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. 30 [iii] Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him.” 11. Of course, in the case at hand, the final inquiry has not been completed. However, a preliminary inquiry was completed based upon which the show cause notice was issued. Non-furnishing the report along with the show cause notice would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Given the expressions by the Apex court, the authority ought to have furnished a copy of the report enabling the petitioner to submit a proper explanation. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the 5th respondent within one (1) week from today requesting the authority to furnish relevant documents. The authority shall furnish the documents in two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the request. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit the explanation within 15 days thereafter. Upon receipt of explanation, the 5th respondent shall conclude inquiry and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.