Introduction:

In a recent landmark decision, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that ongoing departmental inquiries cannot serve as grounds to prevent government employees from traveling abroad. This ruling reinforces the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to travel and cannot be limited except through a legally established procedure. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand presided over this case, which involved a petitioner whose application to visit Singapore to meet his son had been left pending by his employer, Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. The court examined constitutional protections, Indian and U.S. legal precedents, and fundamental rights issues to reach its verdict.

Case Background:

The petitioner, Neeraj Saxena, approached the High Court after his government department employer failed to process his application to travel abroad. After waiting without response, he filed a writ petition to compel the department to act. In response, the department served a charge sheet, thus initiating a departmental inquiry, and argued that the investigation prevented them from granting travel permission.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contended that his right to personal liberty was at stake. His counsel argued that failing to permit him to travel abroad to visit family members amounted to an infringement of his Article 21 rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India. His counsel emphasized that the timing of the charge sheet’s issuance appeared suspect and seemed to be a deliberate attempt to prevent his travel. Furthermore, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Satish Chandra Sharma v Union of India, the counsel argued that a pending departmental inquiry cannot override a person’s right to travel.

Government Department’s Argument:

In defense, the department argued that the inquiry’s existence justified denying travel permission. According to the department’s counsel, allowing an employee facing charges to leave the country could jeopardize the inquiry’s outcome. They argued that the inquiry’s integrity required keeping the petitioner within the country until the proceedings concluded. However, this argument relied on the administrative powers of the department without solid constitutional grounds.

Court’s Judgement and Reasoning:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, asserting that the charge sheet was issued specifically to obstruct the writ petition’s progress. Justice Dhand rejected the department’s arguments, reaffirming that the right to travel falls within the scope of “personal liberty” under Article 21. He referenced Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, which broadened the definition of “personal liberty” to include the right to go abroad.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Satish Chandra Sharma v Union of India, emphasizing that an ongoing departmental inquiry should not restrict an individual’s right to travel. Additionally, the court cited the American case of Ken v Dulles (1958), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the social value of the right to travel, terming it a fundamental human right that cannot be curtailed without due process. Justice Dhand underscored the need to strike a balance between the individual’s right to travel and the department’s procedural concerns. Consequently, he mandated that the petitioner be allowed to travel, with reasonable conditions imposed on his return and participation in the inquiry.