Pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings Can’t Block Passport: Orissa HC Orders Issue of NOC:

Pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings Can’t Block Passport: Orissa HC Orders Issue of NOC The petitioner, a government doctor in the State of Odisha, was due to retire on January 31, 2026, and sought to visit his daughter, who resides in Singapore. For issuance of a passport, he applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government as required for government employees. His request was rejected by orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 on the grounds of alleged unauthorised absence since 28.09.2013 and pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, one of the three departmental proceedings against the petitioner had been dropped. One vigilance case had ended in acquittal, while another was pending, as a charge sheet had been filed but the trial had not commenced. Still, the authorities reiterated their refusal to issue an NOC, relying on an executive communication dated 28.01.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the denial of NOC effectively deprived him of his fundamental right to travel abroad. Question of Law: Whether the State Government can refuse issuance of a No Objection Certificate for a passport solely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings, thereby indirectly restricting the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. HC's Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the rejection orders. The Court held that the executive communication could not be treated as enacted law and could not impose an embargo on the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad. The Court observed that the Passports Act, 1967 does not prescribe pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings as an absolute bar for grant of passport. Denial of NOC on such grounds effectively prevents a government employee from even applying for a passport, thereby indirectly infringing the right to personal liberty under Article 21. It was further held that mere pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings does not amount to proven guilt, and presumption of innocence must prevail. The Court concluded that refusal of NOC in the present case was legally unsustainable and directed the authorities to issue NOC to the petitioner within six weeks. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below