Orders declaring an employee "ceased to be in service" are unsustainable if they contain stigmatic findings without a full domestic enquiry.

The petitioner, a Senior Upper Division Clerk at the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, submitted a complaint regarding irregularities in 2023

Subsequently, he was issued a charge memo for making baseless imputations and was reverted to the post of Store Keeper

During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and while the petitioner was on medical leave for liver cirrhosis, the respondents issued additional charges for unauthorized absence

Although an Enquiry Report was prepared holding the charges proved

the respondents abandoned the formal disciplinary route.

Instead, they issued Ext.P18 order declaring that the petitioner "ceased to be an employee" by invoking Rule 8, Chapter 2 of the Mathilakam Service Rules, 1963, citing continuous absence exceeding 1.5 years and alleging the petitioner’s medical claims were disingenuous

1. Whether the reversion of the petitioner from Senior UDC to Store Keeper prior to the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings was legally sustainable

2. Whether the respondents could validly invoke the "automatic cessation" provision under Rule 8, Chapter 2 of the Mathilakam Service Rules to terminate service while incorporating stigmatic findings without a completed confronted enquiry

The court interpreted Rule 8, Chapter 2 of the Mathilakam Service Rules, 1963, which provides that an employee absent for a continuous period of 1.5 years shall be deemed to no longer be in service unless the appointing authority decides otherwise based on special circumstances

The court also applied the fundamental principle of Administrative Law and Natural Justice, which dictates that any order resulting in termination that carries "stigma" or penal consequences must be preceded by a confronted domestic enquiry, regardless of "automatic" service rules

The court observed that while Rule 8 operates by "operation of law" for long-term absence, it granted the appointing authority discretion to consider "special circumstances"

In this case, the respondents did not merely apply the rule mechanically; they incorporated specific, stigmatic findings in Ext.P18, alleging that the petitioner’s medical condition was not serious, that he was seen near the temple during VIP visits, and that his conduct amounted to "defiance and disrespect"

The court reasoned that since these findings were used to justify the termination and were clearly stigmatic, they could not be legally sustained without a full enquiry adhering to natural justice

Furthermore, the court found the prior reversion of the petitioner via Ext.P5 to be an illegal pre-emptive penalty imposed before the finalization of any enquiry

The court held that the termination was illegally stigmatic and that the respondents failed to follow the directions of the previous judgment regarding the assessment of the petitioner's medical condition

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith