2019 (4) TMI 1765 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal to grant the interim Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by relief as prayed for - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the appellant who is a member of the All India Services has paid leave to his credit and has applied to go to U.S.A. and France to visit members of his family who are residing there. On an earlier occasion this Court permitted him to travel to U.S.A. in the year 2017 and he promptly came back - thus, pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent the appellant from travelling abroad. There is no reason for the Government of India to refuse permission to the appellant to travel abroad - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of permission for a private foreign visit due to lack of vigilance clearance.

Analysis:
The appellant, an IPS Officer, filed O.A. No.1662 of 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, contesting the denial of permission for a private foreign visit from 23.12.2018 to 19.01.2019. He clarified that he was not involved in any criminal case, although departmental inquiries were pending against him, which he had challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal and the High Court had both refused to grant the interim relief sought by the appellant, citing lack of vigilance clearance as the reason for denial of permission.

The appellant contended that the denial of permission infringed upon his fundamental right to travel. The Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of the right to travel abroad as a fundamental human right, emphasizing its role in fostering individual growth and experiences. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the social value and importance of the freedom to go abroad. Despite the pending departmental proceedings, the Court held that such proceedings should not serve as a barrier to the appellant's travel plans.

Upon hearing arguments from the appellant's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General, the Court requested clarification from the Government of India regarding any criminal involvement or objections to the appellant's travel. After considering the appellant's paid leave and previous travel permissions granted by the Court, it was concluded that there was no valid reason for the Government to refuse permission for the upcoming trip to the U.S.A. and France. The Court directed the respondents to allow the appellant to travel during the specified period, with the condition that he provide an undertaking to return by a specified date.

In conclusion, the Civil Appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting him permission to travel abroad based on the fundamental right to travel and the absence of valid reasons for refusal by the Government of India.