Pending departmental proceedings for absenteeism do not bar passport issuance without NOC if no moral turpitude involved.

ORDER

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Challenging the letter of the first respondent dated 06.03.2026 directing the petitioner to obtain NOC from the employer Police Department, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to process the petitioners passport application bearing application reference No.26-1052665919, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Police Department as a Grade-II Police Constable in the year 2017. The petitioner proceeded on medical leave due to his ill-heath and his family. However, on 18.07.2025, the petitioner was declared as 'Deserter' by the Employer/Police Department for not joining duty and departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the same is pending the same being proceeded with. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the petitioner applied for passport, the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 sent a communication stating that an adverse report was received indicating that the petitioner was still in service and had applied passport without permission. Challenging the letter of the first respondent, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was declared as Deserter by an order dated 18.07.2025 by the Police Department, despite the petitioner's approach to complete the departmental proceedings, no effective steps are being taken and further, there is no likelihood of the same being concluded in the near future. Due to the prolonged unemployment, the petitioner's family is pushed into severe financial hardship, therefore, the petitioner left with no other option but to explore possible avenue to eke out his livelihood including look abroad for opportunities and has applied for passport, whereas vide the impugned letter, the first respondent directed the petitioner to get permission from the Government since he is still in service. It is the contention of the petitioner that mere departmental action and non obtaining of permission cannot form the basis to reject the issuance of passport and his right to travel abroad cannot be abrogated. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that as per the requirement of the Passports Act, 1967, the petitioner being a Government employee is mandatorily required to obtain no objection from his employer to travel abroad, failing which his application for grant of passport cannot be considered or processed by the first respondent. Therefore, the letter of the first respondent cannot be interfered with.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that as per the prevailing Rules, the petitioner ought to have obtained No Objection Certificate from the Head of Department prior to applying of passport, however, the petitioner without obtaining such certificate had made an application for issuance of passport. Hence, seeks for appropriate orders.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

8. At the outset, it would be apposite to point out that there is nothing in the Passport Act which even stipulates that the pendency of disciplinary proceeding would stand as an absolute bar for grant of passport. However, clause-4.23 to clause-4.25 of the Passport Manual, 2020 places certain conditions for an applicant, if the applicant is a government employee. The relevant clauses are extracted hereunder:

“4.23. Government/PSU employees, etc., are required to submit Identity Certificate, N