Pending Departmental Enquiry Is No Ground to Deny an Employee Permission to Travel Abroad: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner's son lives in Singapore. On 26.09.2024 the petitioner applied to the respondent, Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd., for permission to travel there from 30.10.2024 to 04.11.2024. The application was not decided, and he filed a writ petition (paras 3, 8). The Court issued notice on 19.10.2024 and the respondent was served the same day; on 21.10.2024 it served a charge-sheet on him (para 9). The respondent's case was that, once a departmental enquiry had been initiated, he could not be allowed to travel abroad (para 6). The petitioner relied on Article 21 and on the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (paras 4-5).

The charge-sheet was served after the respondent received notice of the petition, to defeat its purpose (para 9). The petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. The respondent remained free to conduct a departmental enquiry in accordance with law, but that could not be a ground to deny him permission to travel abroad to meet his son, and the refusal violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 (para 9). Under Maneka Gandhi, personal liberty includes the right to go abroad, and a person can be deprived of it only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law (para 10). Satish Chandra Verma describes the right to travel abroad as an important basic human right that extends to family life, and holds that pending departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent a person from travelling abroad (paras 11-12). Kent v. Dulles (US Supreme Court) was also cited (para 13). There was no reason to refuse permission merely because a charge-sheet had been served and an enquiry was pending (para 14). The balance is struck by conditions securing the employee's presence, with coercive action if they are breached (para 15).