Refusing passport NOC over disciplinary case violates doctor's right to travel, liberty: HC

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court bench recently directed the State government authorities to issue No Objection Certificates (NOC) to a government doctor for obtaining a passport, as it held that refusing to grant a passport on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings amounts to infringement of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court's ruling came while allowing a plea filed by a doctor who had challenged the Government's decision not to grant him an NOC for a passport on the unauthorised absence and pendency of departmental and vigilance proceedings.

"As already stated, the Passport Act does not place an absolute bar for travel abroad on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings (or criminal proceedings). Letter dated 28.01.2014 cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as enacted law. However, it serves to curb the right of a person to travel abroad albeit indirectly, for without NOC, the employee cannot even apply for passport leave alone being issued with one. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that letter dated 28.01.2014 serves to place an embargo on the fundamental right of a citizen to travel abroad. It is needless to mention that this, in effect amounts to infringement of the right to liberty guaranteed under Article -21 of the Constitution of India," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Sashikanta Mishra.

The petitioner works as a doctor under the State Government and is due to retire on 31.01.2026. Desirous of visiting his daughter in Singapore for a few days, the petitioner submitted an online application form for issuance of passport. He also requested the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Odisha, through the letter dated 09.06.2022, for issuance of a No Objection Certificate. However, the 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.

Challenging the Government's rejection of his application, he filed a plea before the High Court. Based on the HC's direction, the petitioner submitted another application on 09.09.2024, 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 was argued by the petitioner that one of the vigilance cases instituted against him had ended in acquittal and another vigilance case is pending, where a chargesheet had been submitted but the trial had not commenced. He had rendered all cooperation to the police during investigation and further undertook to appear before the vigilance Court. Based on this grounds, the doctor filed an application before the HC bench praying for the court to quash the rejection order dated 12.07.2022 and the order dated 21.03.2025. Further, he sought direction to the authorities to issue NOC to him for enabling him to submit an application for the issue of a passport.

While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that no statutory rules or guidelines had been cited by the Government empowering it to refuse NOC on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The only thing that was cited was a communication dated 28.01.2014 issued by the Special Secretary to Government in Home Department,

"As can be seen from a reading of the quoted letter, there is no positive order to the effect that NOC shall not be issued if any disciplinary proceeding is pending. It has been negatively stated that NOC would be issued if there is no departmental proceeding. The question that now falls for consideration is, whether it is legally permissible for the Government to do so. To determine this, it would be proper to note the consequences of such condition," observed the Court.

"Thus, if a disciplinary proceeding is pending against a government employee, no objection would not be issued, which, in turn would imply that he cannot apply for grant of passport. This further implies that he cannot travel abroad. At this stage it would be apposite to observe that there is nothing in the Passport Act which even remotely suggests that pendency of disciplinary proceeding (or vigilance case) 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 he happens to be a government employee," it further noted.

The HC bench referred to the celebrated judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra), wherein Article 21 received an extended meaning.

Referring to this judgment, the HC bench noted, "As already stated, the Passport Act does not place an absolute bar for travel abroad on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings (or criminal proceedings)."

"Viewed from another angle, the restriction imposed by the State Government is unjustified also for the reason that mere pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceeding cannot, under any circumstances, be treated as proven guilt of the employee concerned. It would militate against the fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty," it also noted.

Further referring to HC order in the case of Ashok Kumar Sipani v. Union of India and another, and in the case of Nitin Kapoor (supra), the High Court held, "Thus, non-issue of NOC on the ground cited cannot be sustained in the eye of law."

Accordingly, it observed,

"From a conspectus of the facts, contentions raised and the analysis made, this Court holds that the decision of the authorities to refuse NOC to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings/ criminal cases against him indirectly amounts to infringement of his fundamental right to liberty as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order therefore, deserves interference."

"In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 are hereby quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner without any further delay and in any case, not later than six weeks from today," ordered the Court.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/orissa-hc-dr-ashok-kumar-behera-308217.pdf

Also Read: HC seeks Govt response over lapses at SCB Medical College Hospital