Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be restricted without established law; mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not justify denial of NOC.

JUDGMENT

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by non-issue of No Objection Certificate by the authorities required for issuance of passport.

2. The petitioner is a doctor working under the State Government and is due to retire on 31.01.2026. His daughter resides in Singapore with her family. The petitioner desired to visit her at Singapore for few days and accordingly submitted online application before the authorities for issuance of passport. In view of the requirement in the application form, the petitioner being a government servant, requested the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Odisha vide letter dated 09.06.2022 for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC). Said application was rejected by order dated 12.07.2022 on the ground that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent since 28.09.2013 and three departmental proceedings were pending against him.

2.1. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.24138 of 2023 challenging such rejection. Said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 22.07.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to reiterate his prayer before the concerned authority, if there is any change in circumstances as two years had elapsed since the rejection.The petitioner accordingly submitted another application on 09.09.2024, inter alia, informing that in the meantime, one out of the three disciplinary proceedings had been dropped. Such application of the petitioner was also rejected by order dated 21.03.2025 more or less on the same ground as before. It is contended by the petitioner that one of the vigilance cases instituted against him (VGR Case No. 13 of 2012) has ended in acquittal and another vigilance case being VGR Case No. 34 of 2013 is pending, wherein charge sheet has been submitted but trial has not commenced. The petitioner had rendered all cooperation to the police during investigation and further undertook to appear before the vigilance Court. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer.

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to, 1. Quash the impugned rejection order dated 12.07.2022 as at Annexure -2 and order dated 21.03.2025 as at Annexure -11

2. Direct order that the opposite party No.1 shall issue NOC to the petitioner for enabling him to submit application to the opposite party No.4 for issue of passport as per law.

3. Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State (opposite party No.1) stating that while continuing as Specialist in O & G at SDH, Talcher, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.02.2012. He was reinstated on 14.08.2013 and posted to DHH, Boudh, where he joined on 24.09.2013 but remained unauthorizedly absent since 28.09.2013 for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide Department Memorandum No.10608/H Dated 01.06.2015, which is pending. Besides, two more departmental proceedings vide Department Memorandum No.19454/H dated 26.07.2012 and 6375/H dated 03.03.2017 are pending. Though the departmental proceeding vide Memorandum No.19454/H has been dropped, yet the other two departmental proceedings are pending.

4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Regional Passport Officer (opposite party No.4). Paragraphs 4.23 to 4.25 under Chapter-IV of Passport Manual, 2020 have been referred