Pendency of Departmental Proceedings Cannot Justify Denial of Permission to Travel Abroad on Personal Grounds

The applicant, a Principal Scientist at CMFRI, applied for Ex-India leave to visit his daughter in the USA on personal grounds

The respondents rejected the application via Annexure A3 on April 8, 2019, stating the applicant was not "free from vigilance angle" due to pending Rule 14 disciplinary proceedings regarding alleged financial irregularities

Despite an Inquiry Officer’s report (Annexure A4) finding the charges "not proved" prior to the rejection, the department maintained the denial

Later, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and imposed a penalty

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to set aside the rejection and declare his eligibility for leave

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant traveled abroad as scheduled

1. Whether the pendency of departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules is a valid legal ground to deny an employee permission for a purely personal visit abroad.

2. Whether the denial of Ex-India leave violated the applicant's fundamental right to travel as protected under the Constitution.

The court primarily applied the principle that the right to travel abroad is a basic human and fundamental right as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

The court further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, which held that the mere pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent an official from traveling abroad

Additionally, the court interpreted Office Memorandum No. 11012/11/2007-Estt. (A) of the DoPT (Annexure A2), which stipulates that permission should generally only be denied in cases involving security threats, serious criminal investigations, or where the individual is likely to evade the law

The Tribunal found that the rejection under Annexure A3 could not withstand judicial scrutiny because the visit was purely personal and unconnected to official duties

The court noted that the allegations against the applicant involved financial irregularities, not serious criminal charges or threats to state security that would justify a travel ban

Crucially, the respondents failed to show that the applicant was a flight risk or would evade the disciplinary process

The Tribunal highlighted that even though a penalty was eventually imposed, at the time of the application, the Inquiry Officer had already exonerated the applicant

Following the ratio in Satish Chandra Verma, the court reasoned that "vigilance clearance" cannot be used to infringe upon the fundamental right to travel when the administrative exigencies do not demand such a restriction

The Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize the period of absence from May 15, 2019, to June 12, 2019, within 60 days; the OA was disposed of without costs