Govt Department Cannot Refuse Permission To Employee For Travelling Abroad Citing Pendency Of Domestic Enquiry: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an employee can’t be denied permission to travel abroad just because a charge sheet has been served upon him and domestic enquiry in departmental proceedings is pending against him.
The High Court was considering a petition filed by a man who made an application before the Respondent- Government Department for granting him permission to travel to Singapore to meet his son.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there can be no reason for the respondent to refuse permission to the petitioner to travel abroad just because a charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner and domestic enquiry in departmental proceedings is pending against him.”
Advocate Akhil Simlote represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kapil Sharma represented the Respondent Company- Rajasthan Electronics And Instruments Ltd.
The petitioner wanted to visit his son’s family in Singapore for a period of six days but permission wasn’t granted to him by the respondent-department on the ground that a departmental charge sheet had been issued against him. The facts of the case suggested that the petitioner approached the High Court as his application had not been decided by the respondent-department.
For the petitioners, Simolte submitted before the Bench that the right to travel abroad and meet his son is the fundamental right of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court took note of the fact that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case and opined, “...if at all, the respondent-department wants to conduct any departmental enquiry against the petitioner, they are free to act in accordance with law, but this cannot be a ground to deny permission to the petitioner to travel abroad to meet his son, who is residing at Singapore. Such action on the part of the respondent amounts to violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) wherein it has been held that a person cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. The Bench also referred to the judgment pronounced by the US Supreme Court in Kent v. Dulles (357 US 116 1958) wherein it has been observed that freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents a basic human right of great significance.
The Bench asserted that there can be no reason for the respondent to refuse permission to the petitioner to travel abroad just because a charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner and domestic enquiry in departmental proceedings is pending against him.
The High Court further added, “This court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the department to duly proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner. From perusal of the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the paramount consideration is given to the condition imposed upon the person who has been granted permission to go abroad, so as to ensure that they do not flee from the enquiry.”
Thus, after imposing certain conditions for ensuring the presence of the petitioner before the Department, the Bench directed the Department to grant him permission to travel to Singapore for 6 days.
Cause Title: Neeraj Saxena v. Rajasthan Electronics And Instruments Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:44683)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Akhil Simlote Mr. Dikshant Jain
Respondent: Advocate Kapil Sharma
