IMPORTANT POINT
A government servant's right to access documents in disciplinary proceedings is limited to perusal or extracts, not copies, as per Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services Rules.

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. 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