Karnataka HC Upholds Probationer’s Discharge After She Remained Absent When Maternity And Other Sanctioned Leave Expired

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s discharge as an unsuitable probationer, following her absence after the expiry of sanctioned leave, violated the rules governing her appointment and probation.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that her discharge did not warrant interference.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to set aside the discharge order dated 15 April 2025.

01Facts

The petitioner, appointed as a Software Technician on 6 June 2019 and still on probation, was granted maternity leave from 27 June to 24 December 2023, followed by earned leave and extraordinary leave through 14 August 2024.

pp. 6–9

She did not resume duty after that date. A notice dated 25 September 2024 directed her to report for duty and explain her absence; she replied that she had no one to care for her baby and sought further leave.

pp. 9–10

On 15 April 2025, the Registrar General discharged her under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, as unsuitable to hold the post.

p. 10

She challenged the discharge, contending that it was contrary to law because it occurred while she was on maternity leave and that a departmental inquiry was required.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s discharge as an unsuitable probationer, following her absence after the expiry of sanctioned leave, violated the rules governing her appointment and probation.

¶ 8 · p. 11

ii.2. Whether the discharge was unlawful because it allegedly arose from her maternity-related absence or required a departmental inquiry.

¶ 4, 8 · p. 4, 11

03Law Applied

The Court applied Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, under which the petitioner was discharged as unsuitable to hold the post.

p. 10

It stated that maternity leave is a protected right reflecting dignity, motherhood and substantive equality, but that protection does not extend to unauthorised absence after maternity and other sanctioned leave have expired.

¶ 10–11 · pp. 12–13

The Court also emphasized that public employment entails duties of diligence and discipline, and that statutory protections and service obligations must operate within their respective spheres.

¶ 12–13 · pp. 14–15

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had received maternity leave and subsequent earned and extraordinary leave, but did not return to duty after the last sanctioned leave expired on 14 August 2024, despite being directed to report.

¶ 7, 9 · pp. 6–11

Because the challenged action concerned her continued absence after the exhaustion of leave—not the denial of maternity benefits—the Court held that maternity protection did not bar the discharge.

¶ 10–13 · pp. 12–15

It also noted that her probation had not been declared satisfactorily completed, and found no infraction of the rules warranting judicial interference.

¶ 8–9 · p. 11