SMT.MONIKA vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
R
Reserved on : 25.09.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 674 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.MONIKA
W/O PRAMOD,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SOFTWARE TECHNICIAN,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
RESIDING AT PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY,
BUILDING 2 TOWER 3 NAGASANDRA,
TUMAKURU ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 073.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHUPATHI M.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING ORDER NO. HCC-02/2009(SOFTWARE
TECHNICIAN), BENGALURU DATED 15.04.2025 (ANNEXURE-P)
PASSED BY R1.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following
prayer:
i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction or any
other appropriate writ setting aside the impugned order
bearing ORDER NO. HCC-02/2009 (SOFTWARE
TECHNICIAN), BENGALURU DATED 15-04-2025
st
(Annexure-P) passed by the 1 respondent in the interest
of justice and equity.
ii) Pass such other order/orders in the circumstance of the
case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”
- 3 -
2. Heard Sri T. Narayanaswmy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioner comes to be appointed as a Software
Technician on 06-06-2019 in the High Court and is transferred to
work at several places. On 01-07-2023 the petitioner applies for
maternity leave as there was no one to take care of the baby and
extended her leave from time to time upto 14-08-2024. On
nd
25-09-2024 the 2 respondent/Principal District Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District before whom the petitioner was working issues a
notice directing her to report for duty. After receipt of the notice,
the petitioner explained that there was no person to take care of
her baby and due to her frequent health issues petitioner could not
report for duties. Thereby, petitioner sought extension of leave for
some more days. All these while petitioner was still on probation.
On 15-04-2025 owing to the fact that the petitioner never reported
st
to duties, the 1 respondent discharged the petitioner on the score
- 4 -
that she was not suitable. Alleging that this is contrary to law, the
subject petition is preferred challenging the order of discharge.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri T.Narayanaswamy would vehemently contend that the petitioner
was on maternity leave and she has been discharged while she was
on maternity leave and, therefore, it amounts to action contrary to
law. In terms of Probation Rules a departmental inquiry ought to
have been conducted even with regard to unauthorized absence of
the petitioner. In that light, the learned counsel submits that since
petitioner was on maternity leave and could not join duties, her
case must be considered sympathetically and a direction be issued
for her reinstatement into service.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa
appearing for the High Court would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that the petitioner cannot take
employment casually. Petitioner was appointed as a Software
Technician and did apply for grant of maternity leave. There can no
qualm about the right of the person getting maternity leave.
Petitioner was granted maternity leave from 01-07-2023 till 14-08-
- 5 -
2024, which was 13 months. Even after the said period, the
petitioner did not bother to report for duties. A notice was issued on
25-09-2024, but again did not come back to duties. Therefore,
petitioner was not found suitable for continuation in employment,
as her probation was yet to be declared. He submits that the
reality is, the husband of the petitioner is also a Government
servant. Therefore, it is her case that there is no one to take care of
the child and the petitioner remains unauthorizedly absent. All kinds
of leave had been granted and everything has expired insofar as
probationer is concerned. He seeks dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are not in dispute, as they are a matter of record. They
would not require any iteration. The petitioner is appointed on
06-06-2019 as Software Technician and placed on probation. On
27-02-2021 the petitioner is transferred to Kalaburagi, but
thereafter owing to her request, petitioner was Transferred to
- 6 -
Principal District and Sessions Court, Tumkur on 29-06-2022.
Again, on her own request, petitioner was transferred to Principal
District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru on 13-02-2023. Petitioner
seeks maternity leave for 180 days from 27-06-2023 to 24-12-
2023. The leave was granted till the end of 24-12-2023. Petitioner
seeks earned leave from 25-12-2024 to 28-01-2024, which comes
to be granted. Again, petitioner seeks Extra Ordinary Leave from
29-01-2024 to 07-04-2024 and from 08-04-2024 to 15-07-2024
and the same was granted. Communications of grant of leave are
as follows:
- 7 -
…. …. ….
- 8 -
An office note dated 01-08-2024 was issued stating that petitioner
has already availed 180 days of maternity leave, 35 days of earned
leave and 169 days of extraordinary leave. Therefore, there was no
leave left for a probationer. It reads as follows:
- 9 -
The petitioner again submits one more letter on 15-07-2024
seeking extraordinary leave from 16-07-2024 to 12-01-2025, but
the same was granted for 30 days from 16-07-2024 to 14-08-2024.
Even then the petitioner does not report for duties. Thereafter, a
nd
notice dated 25-09-2024 is issued by the 2 respondent. It reads
as follows:
“ADM/60(38)/2024 Office of the
Prl. District & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, Date: 25.09.2024
NOTICE
Whereas, you are working as Software Technician in this
unit since 16.02.2023. You have been granted Maternity Leave
from 27.06.2023 to 24.12.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.
After availing Maternity Leave, you have submitted
multiple requests seeking Earned Leave or Extraordinary Leave
on the grounds of taking care of baby. As per the requests
submitted, you were granted Earned Leave for 35 days from
25.12.2023 to 28.01.2024 and Extra Ordinary Leave Without
Allowance (EOLWA) for 70 days from 29.01.2024 to 07.04.2024
and 99 days from 08.04.2024 to 15.07.2024.
Further, you have submitted one more letter dated
15.07.2024 (received on 22.07.2024) seeking Extraordinary
Leave from 16.07.2024 to 12.01.2025, but you have been
granted EOLWA for 30 days from 16.07.2024 to 14.08.2024,
finally.
Even though the said Order was communicated to you
through telephone and Whatsapp message, you have not
reported to duty in this office on 15.08.2024 and have been
- 10 -
remaining on unauthorized absence from duty for more than a
month from 15.08.2024 till date.
Thus, you have shown lack of devotion to duty, which is
unbecoming of a Government servant.
You are directed to report to duty, immediately.
Further, take Notice and submit your explanation showing
cause as to why Disciplinary Action should not be initiated
against you in the matter, within 7 days from the date of receipt
of this Notice.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.Β.)
Prl. District & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru”
Reply is then submitted by the petitioner that there was nobody to
take care of the baby and she had to apply leave. This results in an
order of discharge on 15-04-2025. The order reads as follows:
“ ORDER NO.HCC-02/2009(SOFTWARE TECHNICIAN),
BENGALURU DATED 15.04.2025
Smt. Monika, Software Technician working in Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby discharged from Service with
immediate effect as per Rule 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services
(Probation) Rules, 1977, as she is found to be unsuitable to hold
the post of Software Technician in this office.
BY ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE,
Sd/-
(K.S. BHARATH KUMAR)
REGISTRAR GENERAL
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore”
- 11 -
The aforesaid decision is communicated to the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, who, in turn, relieves the petitioner
from service on 25-04-2025. Thus comes to an end the brief
journey of the petitioner in judicial service - her entry into service
and her exit therefrom.
8. The question that now falls for consideration is, whether
the termination of the petitioner's services suffers from any
infraction of the Rules governing her appointment and probation,
warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
9. What cannot be lost sight of, much less brushed aside, is
the unmistakable circumstance that the petitioner was a
probationer, whose probation was never declared to have been
satisfactorily completed. In striking contrast, the probation of all
other similarly placed employees came to be declared satisfactory
albeit
in the year 2025, with retrospective effect. The distinction is
neither insignificant nor inconsequential. The petitioner, after
exhausting the maternity leave to which she was legitimately
entitled, proceeded to avail herself of other categories of leave and,
upon exhaustion of even those leave entitlements, chose to remain
- 12 -
absent from duty without authorization. The absence was not
momentary or incidental; it continued notwithstanding the expiry of
every species of leave that she had sought and secured. The
petitioner, therefore, cannot seek to convert the birth of a child into
a perpetual justification for remaining away from the obligations of
public employment.
10. Maternity leave is a manifestation of the
constitutional commitment to dignity, motherhood and
substantive equality. It is a right that the law zealously
protects, and not a concession that the employer grudgingly
extends. But a right, however sacrosanct, cannot be
stretched beyond its legitimate contours to become an
inexhaustible charter for unauthorised absence. The
protective umbrella of maternity benefits is intended to shield
motherhood from the rigours of employment; it is not intended to
immunise an employee from the discipline that employment
necessarily demands. The petitioner cannot seek to take shelter
under the benevolent canopy of maternity protection for conduct
- 13 -
that commenced after the exhaustion of maternity leave and
continued even after the expiry of all other leave sanctioned to her.
11. It is of considerable significance that maternity leave was
never denied to the petitioner. Petitioner was extended the benefit
in accordance with law. The controversy, therefore, does not
concern the denial of maternity benefits, nor does it concern any
prejudice visited upon the petitioner on account of motherhood. It
concerns petitioner’s conduct subsequent to the exhaustion of such
benefits. Having availed herself of maternity leave and
thereafter other permissible leave, the petitioner was under
an obligation to resume duties upon their expiry or secure
further leave in accordance with the governing Rules.
Petitioner did neither. Instead, she remained away from
service and now seeks to place maternity leave at the
forefront of her challenge to the termination. Maternity leave
cannot be made a convenient shield against the
consequences of an independent and prolonged
unauthorised absence.
- 14 -
12. Public employment is not merely a source of
livelihood; it is a position of responsibility, carrying with it
corresponding obligations of diligence, discipline and
devotion to duty. At a time when countless qualified
aspirants strive for the scarce opportunity of securing public
employment, an employee who has been fortunate enough
to secure such an opportunity, cannot treat the employment
with studied indifference. An appointment to public service
cannot be regarded as a privilege to be enjoyed at
convenience and an obligation to be discharged at leisure.
The security that public employment affords is accompanied
by the responsibility that public service demands.
13. Compassion in the application of service law cannot
be permitted to eclipse the governing Rules, just as the
rigour of those Rules cannot be permitted to extinguish a
legitimate statutory protection. The two must operate in
their respective spheres. In the case at hand, the petitioner was
accorded the protection that maternity law guaranteed. What
followed was not an exercise of that right, but a continued absence
- 15 -
from duty beyond the leave permissible to her. The petitioner
cannot, therefore, seek to draw sustenance from a right that was
never denied to her, to invalidate an action founded upon
circumstances arising independently thereafter.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit, the petition
dismissed.
stands
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp