[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Babilu Sankar vs Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple on 27 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:16831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO.17528 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BABILU SANKAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.THE LATE SANKARAN KUTTY NAIR GB-1,
SREE MANTHRA RESIDENCY ULLOOR LANE,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S. MANU
SRI.DILU JOSEPH
SRI.C.A. ANUPAMAN
SRI.T.B. SIVAPRASAD
SMT.NEETHU.K. SHAJI
SRI.C.Y. VIJAY KUMAR
SMT.MANJU E.R.
SRI.ALINT JOSEPH
SRI.PAUL JOSE
SMT.DAINY DAVIS
SMT.RILNA RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.MAHESH KUMAR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE
MATHILAKAM OFFICE, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MATHILAKAM OFFICE, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2026:KER:16831
W.P.(C) No.17528/2025
:2:
3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BY ADV.
SRI.R. SURAJ KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.01.2026, THE COURT ON 27.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16831
W.P.(C) No.17528/2025
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.17528 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner is holding the post of Senior
Upper Division Clerk in the Mathilakam office of Sree
Padmanabha Swamy Temple. This writ petition is filed
aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P18 orders by which the petitioner
has been declared as ceased to be an employee of the
Temple.
2. The petitioner states that he has rendered
many years of unblemished service in the Temple. In the
year 2023, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint dated
2026:KER:16831
28.01.2023 to the Chairman of the Administrative Committee
pointing out certain irregularities. Instead of enquiring into
the complaint, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 charge
memo dated 01.04.2023 alleging that the petitioner is
purportedly making reckless and baseless imputations
against the Administrative Committee. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P3 reply. The respondents initiated disciplinary
proceedings.
3. While the inquiry was going on, the
respondents arbitrarily reverted the petitioner from the post of
Senior UDC to the post of Store Keeper, as per Ext.P5 order
dated 17.02.2023. The petitioner hence filed W.P.(C)
No.17504/2023. This Court allowed the writ petition in part
as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.08.2023. The
Administrative Committee was directed to consider the
petitioner's objection to the memo of charges. The petitioner
was permitted to approach the Executive Officer with an
application for leave.
2026:KER:16831
4. To the surprise of the petitioner, on the very
same day, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 fresh memo of
charges framing additional charges for unauthorised absence
from duty. The petitioner submitted reply to Ext.P7 enclosing
Medical Certificate to show that he was suffering from non
alcoholic liver cirrhosis with complications of intermittent
spitting of blood, which incapacitated him from working inside
the Temple premises.
5. The disciplinary authority, however,
proceeded with the enquiry. By Ext.P10 letter dated
06.11.2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to drop
the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner could not attend all
the inquiry sittings due to persisting medical condition. The
Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte without accommodating
his request for adjournment on medical grounds. The
Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P12 Enquiry Report holding the
charges as proved.
2026:KER:16831
6. The petitioner was required to show-cause
as to why major punishment should not be imposed,
proposing the punishment of demotion from the Cadre of
Senior UDC. The writ appeals preferred by the petitioner
were dismissed as per Ext.P14 judgment.
7. To the surprise of the petitioner, while the
disciplinary proceedings were pending, the 2nd respondent
issued Ext.P13 Show-cause Notice dated 07.01.2025
alleging that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct
under Rule 22(1) and Rule 18 of Chapter 4A of the
Mathilakam Service Rules, 1963 requiring the petitioner to
show-cause why he should not be removed from service.
Ext.P13 imputed that the petitioner did not submit any reply to
the memo of charges, which is factually incorrect, contends
the petitioner.
8. After receiving Ext.P17 representation, the
3rd respondent issued Ext.P18 order whereby the petitioner
was declared to have ceased to be in service, as a
2026:KER:16831
disciplinary punishment. The petitioner states that Ext.P18
arbitrarily penalised and punished the petitioner. Exts.P5 and
P18 orders are illegal and unsustainable and are liable to be
set aside.
9. The respondents filed a counter affidavit.
The respondents asserted that Ext.P18 order has been
issued strictly in accordance with the Mathilakam Rules
governing the affairs of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy
Temple, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Chapter 6 Rule 49 of
the Mathilakam Rules, an employee is entitled to 30 days of
medical leave within a completed year of service. Therefore,
the petitioner's application for medical leave was rejected
with a direction to apply for any other category of leave to
which he is eligible.
10. As the petitioner was abstaining from duty
since 16.04.2023 without proper authorisation or sanctioned
leave, two notices dated 27.05.2023 and 07.08.2023 were
issued to him directing to rejoin duty forthwith. The petitioner
2026:KER:16831
failed to report for duty. Consequently, a memo of charges
was issued to him on 11.08.2023 for unauthorised absence,
which is violation of Chapter 4A Rule 22.1 and Chapter 4A
Rule 18 of Mathilakam Rules.
11. A copy of Enquiry Report was duly served
on the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a representation
wherein he expressed an unconditional apology. After
considering the reply, the disciplinary authority proposed the
penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given
notice and he submitted a reply. The petitioner was
thereafter called for a personal hearing. The petitioner failed
to appear for hearing. The petitioner has been persistently
evading his duty and sought to delay the disciplinary
proceedings.
12. The respondents specifically submitted that
Ext.P18 order dated 31.03.2025 which is under challenge in
the present proceedings, has not been issued as part of any
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It has
2026:KER:16831
been passed strictly in accordance with Rule 2(8) of the
Mathilakam Rules. As per the said Rule, any employee who
remains absent from duty, whether on leave or otherwise, for
a continuous period exceeding 1½ years, shall be deemed to
be no longer in the service of the Temple.
13. The respondents submitted that the
Mathilakam Rules came into force with effect from
01.04.1963 and they were formulated in consideration of the
unique nature of the duties and responsibilities entrusted to
the employees of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. The
respondents submitted that there may not be an exact replica
of these rules elsewhere. But, similar regulations exist in
various Temple Administrations across India. The writ
petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be
dismissed.
14. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondents.
2026:KER:16831
15. The petitioner is in service of the Temple for
long. While the petitioner was working as Senior UDC,
Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 01.04.2023 was served on
him on an allegation that he has made reckless and baseless
imputations against the Administrative Committee. The
petitioner submitted reply. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)
No.5229/2023 challenging the enquiry proceedings. The
petitioner had also filed W.P.(C) No.17504/2023 challenging
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.
16. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by
Ext.P4 common judgment wherein the Administrative
Committee was directed to consider the objections of the
petitioner. The judgment also directed the petitioner to
approach the Executive Officer of the Temple with application
for leave under the applicable heads. This Court directed
the respondents to consider such application adverting to his
medical condition and if necessary, after assessing the
medical condition through proper methods.
2026:KER:16831
17. Ext.P6 judgment is dated 11.08.2023. On
the very same day, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh charge
memo alleging unauthorised absence from duty. The
petitioner states that he was remaining absent due to a
serious physical condition of non alcoholic liver cirrhosis with
complications like intermittent spitting of blood etc. Ext.P11
Medical Certificate dated 04.12.2023 issued by Ananthapuri
Hospital would evidence the same. The Enquiry Officer
submitted Ext.P12 Enquiry Report holding that the following
charges as proved:
(1) The delinquent failed to attend duty
while working as a Senior Clerk in Sree
Padmanabha Swamy Temple, without prior
intimation or permission, thereby violated
Chapter 4A Rule 22.1 of the Mathilakam Service
Rules.
(2) Despite being served with notices
dated 27.05.2023 and 07.08.2023, requiring him
to rejoin duty within three days due to the staff
shortage at the Temple, the delinquent failed to
2026:KER:16831
comply with the directions issued, thereby
violated Chapter 4A Rule 18 of the Mathilakam
Service Rules.
18. After issuing a show-cause notice based on
the Enquiry Report, it appears that respondents 2 and 3
abandoned the disciplinary proceedings and instead issued
Ext.P18 order dated 31.03.2025, purportedly under the
Mathilakam Service Rules. Ext.P18 states that the petitioner
has been absent and eligible leave was granted for the period
upto 15.04.2023. The petitioner has been remaining
unauthorisedly absent since 16.04.2023. Ext.P18 proceeds
to state that the Medical Certificates issued by the Doctors do
not indicate that he is not in a position to attend duties and
his presence near the Temple premises occasionally shows
that his health condition is not so worse so as to be absent
from duty. This conclusion is arrived at without any medical
examination even though in Ext.P6 judgment this Court had
observed that the petitioner's medical condition should be
2026:KER:16831
considered through proper method, if required. In spite of
notice, the petitioner has not rejoined duty. Therefore, in
exercise of the powers under Rule 8 Chapter 2 of the
Mathilakam Service Rules, 1963, the petitioner has been
declared as ceased to be an employee under the Mathilakam
service.
19. The Mathilakam Service Rules have been
framed by the Raja of Travancore as a Trustee of the Temple
Administration. The Mathilakam Service Rules consist of
conditions of service of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple
employees. The Rules came into force with effect from
01.04.1963. Rule 8 Chapter 2 of the Mathilakam Service
Rules reads as follows:
8. നയമന ധക ര , ക ര തനവശ ഷ പരതസകൾ
പരഗണച മറച തരമ നക ത പക , മതലകനത ഒര
ജവനക രൻ അവധശയ ടകടനയ മറവധതനല
ഒനരവർഷ തടർചയ യ ശജ ലക ഹ ജര ക തരന ൽ
അയ ൾ മതലക സർവസനല ഒര ജവനക രനല ത
യതരനത ണ1 .
വ ദകരണ : ഈ ശകതതനല മശ5നതങല
ശകതതനല നമമ ര യ ശജ ല ശന ക ൻ
2026:KER:16831
അയകന9ടന മതലക സർവസനല കഴ1 നക ർ ഈ
ചടങളനട ക ര തൽ ശജ ലക ഹ ജര ക തവര യ
കരതന9ടനതല.
Rule 8 shows that if a temple employee remains absent from
duty for 1½ years continuously, and the appointing authority
does not take a decision to the contrary taking into account
special circumstances, then such person will cease to be an
employee under the service.
20. A reading of Rule 8 would indicate that it
has been framed to apply in situations where an employee
remains absent from duty for more than 1½ years, whether
the absence is availing leave or otherwise. Therefore, even if
an employee absent himself from duty for 1½ years
continuously, the appointing authority will be empowered to
declare that the employee ceases to be in the service of the
Temple, unless the appointing authority takes a decision to
the contrary.
2026:KER:16831
21. The Rule therefore applies automatically.
On conditions being satisfied, the person will cease to be an
employee by operation of law. Nevertheless, even in such
cases, wherever possible a show-cause notice will have to be
issued to such an employee before declaring him to be
"ceased to be in service" and principles of natural justice
should be complied with. This is because an order under
Rule 8 of the Mathilakam Rules is passed without conducting
a confronted domestic enquiry. Even an employee who may
have justifiable reasons for being absent from service for
such duration, will be liable to be declared as "ceased to be
an employee".
22. Going by the nature of the Rule and purpose
behind it, when action is taken under the Rules and orders
are passed, such orders shall not attach stigma on the
employee, because an order under Rule 8 Chapter 2 of the
Mathilakam Rules is not passed after conducting a domestic
enquiry adhering to the principles of natural justice.
2026:KER:16831
23. In the case of the petitioner, the
respondents have conducted a domestic enquiry and drawn
up an Enquiry Report. At that stage, the domestic enquiry
proceedings are abandoned and the petitioner has been
declared as "ceased to be an employee" invoking Rule 8.
Ext.P18 order passed against the petitioner categorically
states that the petitioner has been unauthorisedly present in
the Temple and surroundings when VIPs visit the Temple.
Ext.P18 states that without any serious medical condition, the
petitioner has remained absent. Ext.P18 further proceeds to
state that the petitioner has refused to join duty in spite of
instructions and he has not appeared in the enquiry in
person. Ext.P18 concludes that the action of the petitioner
amounts to defiance and disrespect to the Temple
Administration.
24. These findings / observations in Ext.P18 are
clearly stigmatic and could not have been made otherwise
than through a confronted enquiry conducted in compliance
2026:KER:16831
of the well settled principles of natural justice. I also find that
reversion of the petitioner from the post of Senior UDC to the
post of Store Keeper as per Ext.P5 amounts to a penalty,
which has been imposed without and before finalising the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Exts.P5 and
P18 are therefore liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is therefore allowed and
Exts.P5 and P18 orders are set aside. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/24.02.2026
2026:KER:16831
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 17528 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
COMPLAINT DATED 28-01-2023 SUBMITTED
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED
01.04.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS/
STATEMENTS OF DEFENCE DATED 19.04.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.08.2023 IN W.P.(C) 5229/2023 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-02-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.08.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.17504/2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COUR
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED
11.08.2023, ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, SREE PADMANABHASWAMY TEMPLE
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.05.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENCLOSING A MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE AND REQUESTING
PARTICIPATION IN THE INQUIRY
Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.10.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
06.11.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
2026:KER:16831
DATED 04.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE
ANANTHAPURI HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
17.10.2024 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER /
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-13 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
A2/2023/SPST/163 DATED 07.01.2025
Exhibit P-14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
10.03.2025 IN W.A.NO.126/2024 AND W.A.
Exhibit P-15 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPLY/STATEMENT OF DEFENSE DATED
15.01.2025 TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
Exhibit P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION
DATED 15.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P-17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THE
G-MAIL PROOF FOR HAVING SENT THE
REPRESENTATION ON 11-3-2025
Exhibit P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE
NO. A2/2023/SPST/163 DATED 31.03.2025
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH A
CLEAR TYPED COPY OF THE SAME
Exhibit P-19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11-05-
2025.
Exhibit P-20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN
KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 12-05-2025.
Exhibit P-21 ORIGINAL OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 3-9-2025 ISSUED BY DR.KARTHIK
V., CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF
ENDOCRINOLOGY, SP MEDIFORT HOSPITAL,
ENCHAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P-22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY
DATED 6-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, MATHILAKAM OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P-23 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2026:KER:16831
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MATHILAKOM OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1-9-2014
BEARING NO. A.75/2014/SPST CONTAINING
THE ORDER OF TEMPORARILY APPOINTING
THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER AS THE P.R.O
OF THE TEMPLE
Exhibit P-24 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
APPRECIATION AND GOOD CONDUCT ISSUED
BY THE IMPLEMENTING OFFICER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY, SWADESH DARSHAN SCHEME, UNDER
THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, CARRIED OUT BY THE SREE
PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPLICANT
/PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MO
380/2023/SPST DATED 17.08.2023, ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit R2 (2) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
25.08.2023, EVIDENCING THE ENDORSEMENT
OF THE PETITIONER THAT HE HAD RECEIVED
THE SAME
Exhibit R2 (3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MO
416/2023/SPST DATED 13.09.2023
Exhibit R2 (4) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MO
NO.150/2023/SPST DATED 20.04.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit R2 (5) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
MATHILAKAM RULES
Exhibit R2 (6) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.12.2022 SUBMITTED BY
SRI.P.ANILKUMAR
Exhibit R2 (7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R2 (8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
07.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
2026:KER:16831
Exhibit R2 (9) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER
MATHILAKAM ORDER NO.580/2023/SPST
DATED 21.12.2023
Exhibit R2 (10) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION IN THE
MATHILAKAM RULES
Exhibit R2 (11) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
26.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit R2 (12) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
20.02.2025 FILED BY THE CHIEF
VIGILANCE OFFICER
Exhibit R2 (13) TRUE COPY OF THE FACE BOOK SOCIAL
MEDIA POST SHOWING THE PETITIONER
LEADING A DEMONSTRATION
Exhibit R2 (14) TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT DATED
26.09.2019 OF THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R2 (15) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
01.10.2025 FILED BY BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit R2 (16) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 15.10.2025 IN CRIME
NO.2090/2025 OF THE FORT POLICE
STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
