Govt Can't Withhold NOC For Issuance Of Employee's Passport Merely On Ground Of Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the government cannot refuse to grant 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for issuance of passport to an employee merely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding(s), as right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.Crystalizing the constitutional protection granted to every citizen against arbitrary denial of the liberty to visit foreign countries, the Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed –“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.”The case revolved around the repeated yet unsuccessful attempts made by a government doctor to fetch NOC from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Odisha in order to facilitate his visit to Singapore, where his daughter resides with her in-laws. The petitioner initially, through a letter dated 09.06.2022, applied for the NOC which is a pre-requisite for issuance of passport for government employees. To his dismay, the application was binned primarily on the ground that he remained absent from his duties unauthorizedly for a particular period for which he has been subjected to a disciplinary proceeding.He impugned such rejection through a writ petition. The High Court by its order dated 22.07.2024 asked him to reiterate his prayer before the authority, for two years had already elapsed in between. Though he complied with such suggestion of the Court, he met with another rejection which was premised on virtually the same grounds as before. Thus, he challenged such rejection order through this writ petition.The moot question which came up before the Bench for consideration was whether the government was justified in denying NOC to the petitioner solely on the ground of pendency of certain disciplinary proceedings.Justice Mishra, at the very outset, highlighted the conspicuous absence of any statutory Rules or guideline empowering the government to refuse NOC on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding. He pointed out that the authority seemed to have rejected the NOC on the strength of a communication dated 28.01.2014 issued by the Special Secretary to Government in the Home Department.The Court placed explicit reliance on the landmark ruling of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) which upheld the right of citizens to visit abroad that is shieled by Article 21. The provision safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law, which essentially means “enacted law” or “state law” and not mere executive instructions. Accordingly, it held –“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.”Consequently, the Court held that the denial of NOC to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings indirectly amounts to infringement of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. Resultantly, the impugned rejection orders were set aside and the authority was directed to issue the NOC within a maximum period of six weeks.Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case No: W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2025Date of Judgment: November 11, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Sidheswar Mallik, P.C. Das, M.Mallik, S. Malllick & A.P. Mohanty, AdvocatesCounsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate. Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms. S. Patra, CGCCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 151Click Here To Read/Download Order

Govt Can't Withhold NOC For Issuance Of Employee's Passport Merely On Ground Of Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Govt Can't Withhold NOC For Issuance Of Employee's Passport Merely On Ground Of Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers