Employment decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice, even if not explicitly mentioned in governing rules.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The appellant - Temple and its functionaries, challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2026, on various grounds, particularly that the findings therein are contrary to Rule 8 of Chapter 2 of the “Mathilakam Service Rules” (“Rules” for short).

2. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.R.Suraj Kumar – appearing for the appellants, contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed Ext.P18 order, or to have directed the reinstatement of the respondent herein because, admittedly, he had been absconding from service and had remained absent for over 1½ years. The learned senior counsel pointed out that, even though the respondent maintains that he had been suffering from Non- alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) and had relied upon Ext.P8 certificate from a hospital in substantiation, factual enquiry by his clients found that he was in the Temple many times during the period, accompanying certain important persons for their “darsan”.

3. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon further asserted that the respondent had commenced his unauthorised absence, consequent to his being transferred through Ext.P5; and that inquiry has revealed ineluctably that his attempt is only to obtain an easy office job, which would give him the opportunity of being with important people, so as to avoid other responsibilities. He then predicated that, going strictly by the provisions of the aforementioned Rule, no enquiry or hearing is necessary and the ipso facto absence of the respondent for over 1½ years without any explanation, would be sufficient to justify the action therein. He explained that, in spite of this, the appellants offered the respondent an opportunity to make his explanation; and that, it is thereafter, that Ext.P18 order has been issued, which is manifest from the fact that such explanation has been referred to as item No.8 therein. The learned senior counsel prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed.

4. Sri.C.S.Manu – appearing for the respondent, responded to the afore, saying that his client is suffering from a very debilitating disease, as evident from Ext.P8; but that, it is without giving him proper opportunity, that Ext.P18 order has been issued in a rather merciless manner. He added that, in fact, the obdurate nature of the appellants, in ensuring that his client is sent out of service, is evident from the fact that, though a disciplinary enquiry was earlier initiated by the appellants, it was dropped; with them then turning to the ambit of the “Rules”, which, they appear to think, enables them to send out a person like his client without even a proper enquiry. He argued that the learned Single Judge has correctly held that, even if the “Rules” are silent as to the requirement of compliance of the principles of natural justice, it has to be read into it, as per the requirements of the Constitutional Scheme. He prayed that this appeal be, therefore, dismissed, especially since his client has been out of service for the last several years for no fault that can be attributed to him.

5. When we examine the impugned judgment, on the touchstone of the rival submissions, it becomes ineluctable that, the requisite for following the mandate of natural justice, has been read into Rule 8 of Chapter 2 of Mathilakam Service Rules by the learned Single Judge. The said Rule has been extracted in paragraph 19 of the judgment and therefore, we choose not to do so; and it is evident therefrom that, when an employee is found missing from service for over 1½ years, t