The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed by the pendency of departmental proceedings without due process.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The issue involved in this petition is “whether the petitioner can be deprived of travelling abroad because of the pendency of departmental enquiry against him.” As a matter of fact the son of the petitioner is residing at Singapore, and the petitioner wants to visit him for family reasons for a period of six days, but permission has not been granted to him by the respondent-department on the ground that a departmental charge-sheet has been issued against him. In this background, the issue involved in this petition is required to be decided.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“i. Call for the entire record of the case and examine the same;

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad (Singapore) from 30.10.2024 to 04.11.2024.

iii. Any other appropriate order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner may also be passed in the interest of justice.

iv. Cost of Writ Petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”

3. The fact of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner made an application before the respondent-department on 26.09.2024 for granting him permission to travel Singapore with effect from 30.10.2024 to 04.11.2024 to meet his son. Counsel submits that an application in this regard was submitted by the petitioner on 26.09.2024, but inspite of passing of considerable time, the said application has not been decided by the respondent-department for the reasons best known to them. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above prayer.

4. Learned counsel submits that right to travel abroad, and meet his son who is residing in abroad, is the fundamental right of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that the respondent-department cannot curtail or violate the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors., in Civil Appeal No.3802/2019, decided on 09.04.2019.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.10.2024 wherein charges have been framed against him and a Departmental Enquiry has been initiated thereto. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to travel abroad and the instant petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that the son of the petitioner is residing at Singapore and owing to family reasons, the petitioner wants to travel abroad to meet his son and in this regard, he submitted an application before the respondent, seeking permission to visit Singapore with effect from 30.10.2024 till 04.11.2024, but the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner remained unaddressed. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing of this writ petition.

9. This Court vide order dated 19.10.2024 issued notice to the respondent and the case was ordered to be listed before this Court on 23.10.2024. It appears that the respondent was served on 19.10.2024 and after receipt of the notice of this Court, the respondent has served charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 21.10.2024, to defeat the purpose of the instant writ petition. The petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and 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, w