Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that authorities cannot deny a government employee a No Objection Certificate for obtaining a passport solely because disciplinary proceedings are pending, reaffirming that the liberty to travel abroad falls within the protection of Article 21. Clarifying the constitutional shield against arbitrary restrictions on foreign travel, the Court stated that such pendency cannot operate as a bar when no enacted law authorizes the refusal. The case concerned the petitioner’s request to visit his family overseas, which was declined on the basis of alleged unauthorized absence and ongoing inquiries. The Court directed issuance of the NOC within six weeks, concluding that executive instructions cannot curtail a fundamental right.

The matter arose from a government employee’s request for a No Objection Certificate required for submission of a passport application. The petitioner, a doctor employed under the State Government and due to retire in early 2026, sought to visit his daughter residing in Singapore. Being a government servant, he applied to the competent authority in June 2022 for issuance of the NOC. The authority rejected the request in July 2022 citing unauthorized absence from duty since September 2013 and pendency of three departmental proceedings.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Cost Direction In NI Act Settlement Appeal ; Damodar S. Prabhu Cost-For-Compounding Guidelines Cannot Be Regarded As A Binding Precedent

The petitioner later approached the Court, after which he was permitted to make a fresh representation if circumstances had changed. He again applied in September 2024, informing the authorities that one of the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped. The application was rejected in March 2025 on the same grounds. The petitioner asserted that one vigilance case had ended in acquittal and another remained pending at the charge-sheet stage, and that he had cooperated with the investigating authorities.

The State submitted that the pendency of two disciplinary proceedings barred issuance of NOC in view of an executive communication directing departments to issue NOCs only where no proceedings were pending or contemplated. The passport authority stated that government employees must furnish an Identity Certificate, NOC, or prior intimation under the Passport Manual, and that it had no role in the decision on NOC. The petitioner relied on constitutional protections and precedents recognizing the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty.

The Court recorded that the petitioner’s applications were rejected on identical grounds and noted: “No statutory Rules or guideline has been cited by the Government empowering it to refuse NOC on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding.” It examined the communication dated 28.01.2014 issued by the Home Department and observed that “there is no positive order to the effect that NOC shall not be issued if any disciplinary proceeding is pending.” It identified that the instruction only stated NOC may be issued when no departmental proceeding is pending.

The Court then considered the consequences of denying NOC. It stated that if NOC were withheld because of pending disciplinary proceedings, “he cannot apply for grant of passport. This further implies that he cannot travel abroad.” The Court examined the Passport Act and stated: “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.”

Referring to the Passport Manual, 2020, the Court noted that government employees are required to submit NOC or a prior intimation letter but observed that the validity of this requirement had not been challenged by the petitioner.

Invoking Maneka Gandhi, the Court quoted: “The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude… it includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law.” It stated the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be backed by enacted law.

The Court further observed that the 2014 Home Department letter “cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as enacted law” and that it nevertheless “serves to curb the right of a person to travel abroad albeit indirectly.” It held that such an embargo “amounts to infringement of the right to liberty guaranteed under Article-21.”

Additionally, the Court recorded that mere pendency of proceedings cannot establish guilt: “Mere pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceeding cannot, under any circumstances, be treated as proven guilt… every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

Also Read: Termination Without Section 25-F Compliance Is Illegal Retrenchment: Orissa High Court Directs Compensation In Service Dispute After Superannuation

The Court relied on precedents including Ashok Kumar Sipani v. Union of India and Nitin Kapoor v. State of Odisha, reiterating that pendency of criminal or departmental proceedings does not automatically bar travel abroad and that decisions must be supported by cogent reasons.

The Court directed: “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.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s. Sidheswar Mallik, P.C. Das, M. Mallik, S. Malllick & A.P. Mohanty, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate; Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms. S. Patra, CGC

Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra