Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who is facing a pending departmental enquiry, challenging the department’s refusal to allow him to travel Singapore to visit his son on the ground that it deprives his right to travel abroad, a Single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., acknowledged the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 and, i.e., right to travel as an essential aspect of personal liberty and directed the respondent department to permit the petitioner to travel to Singapore under specific conditions.
In the instant matter, the petitioner sought permission from the respondent department on 26-09-2024, to travel to Singapore from 30-10-2024 to 04-11-2024, for family reasons. The department did not respond to the request, and subsequently, a departmental charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 21-10-2024.
The petitioner contended that the right to travel abroad is part of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the department’s refusal based on a pending departmental enquiry infringes on this right. However, opposing the permission, the respondent argued that the pending departmental enquiry justifies the refusal of permission to ensure the petitioner remains within jurisdiction for proceedings.
The Court opined that since the petitioner is not involved in any criminal and respondent department is free to conduct any departmental enquiry, therefore, this cannot be a ground to deny permission to the petitioner to travel abroad to meet his son. The Court stated that “Such action on the part of the respondent amounts to violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21, as reinforced in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048, where the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to travel is integral to personal liberty and cannot be arbitrarily denied.
The Court observed that the department’s timing in issuing the charge-sheet appeared to undermine the petitioner’s request for judicial relief, constituting a possible infringement on his rights. The Court highlighted the need to balance the petitioner’s right to travel with the department’s interest in continuing the enquiry.
The Court directed the respondent to grant the petitioner permission to travel to Singapore from 30-10-2024 to 04-11-2024, subject to conditions ensuring his return, i.e.,
-
The petitioner must furnish an undertaking to return to India by November 6, 2024.
-
He must commit to appear before the department for the enquiry upon his return.
-
The travel is restricted exclusively to Singapore.
The petition was disposed of with directives allowing the petitioner to travel, conditioned upon his compliance with set undertakings to prevent any obstruction to the ongoing departmental proceedings.
[Neeraj Saxena v. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3261, Decided on 23-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Akhil Simlote and Mr. Dikshant Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Kapil Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
