This Writ Petition has been instituted calling in question the order passed by the Commandant of the 42nd Battalion of the Central Reserved Police Force (for short 'CRPF'), Brakes, Hyderabad, suggesting to the writ petitioner to apply for grant of No Objection Certificate (for short 'NOC') for securing passport after the departmental enquiry initiated against him is completed.
The writ petitioner is presently working as a Sub Inspector with the CRPF, an Armed Force of the Union. On the ground that he wants to meet his wife, who was working as a Physical Education Teacher at Sharja, the writ petitioner solicited permission to obtain a passport. Therefore, he submitted a representation seeking grant of NOC, to enable him to apply for securing a passport. That representation has been dealt with by the Commandant of the Force suggesting to the writ petitioner to renew his request after the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and pending as at the time, are concluded. It is alleged that due lack of proper supervision of the personnel belonging to the Force under his control, which gave rise to an unpleasant incident resulting in a crime being registered with Machavaram Police Station under Sections 364, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Since, the said disciplinary proceedings were pending, the Commandant has considered it not appropriate time to grant the NOC solicited by the writ petitioner for securing the passport.
I have heard Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.S.Nanda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that since the writ petitioner is a member of an Armed Force, he is under an obligation to disclose the said information in his application form for securing the Indian Government Passport and hence the writ petitioner has solicited NOC to be granted by the Commandant to him, which can be enclosed to his application form for securing the passport. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that declining to grant NOC or purposefully delaying the same would amount to interference with the right of the petitioner to move about freely. It is, thus, interference with his liberty.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petitioner, a being member of an Armed Force of the Union, is required to maintain very high degree of integrity and devotion to duty and it is the call of the duty which is far more paramount than his right to travel or leave the country and therefore in larger public interest, permission for securing the passport can also be denied. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, in fact, in the present case, the writ petitioner has not been denied the grant of NOC by the Commandant of the Force, but the writ petitioner was merely suggested to await the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him as it is equally essential for the Force to complete all disciplinary proceedings in right earnest.
I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. It is too late in the day for one to suggest that right to travel abroad does not form part of the guaranteed right of liberty under our Constitution. Right to travel abroad requires grant of passports by the respective Nations. Therefore, the Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') regulating the issues relating to the grant of passports and travel documents. Section 3 of the said Act imposes embargo by setting out that no person shall depart from, or attempt to depart from India, unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. It is, therefore, essential that any person who intends to depart from India was required to possess the passport.
The procedure relating to submission of applications and the consideration of such applications for grant of passport is dealt with under Section 5 of the Act. In terms of sub- section (2) thereof, the passport authority after making such inquiry, as it may consider necessary, grant the passport in writing or refuse to grant the same. The grounds subject to which the passport applied for can be refused have been enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. It will be appropriate to notice that the grant of passport can be refused, if in the opinion of the passport authority, the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. Similarly, if in the opinion of the passport authority, the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to be detrimental to the security of the country, the passport can be refused.
Similarly, if the applicant is convicted within the preceding five years by any Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years, or in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant, any proceedings are pending before a criminal Court in India, the applicant can be denied the grant of passport. Conditions subject to which a passport shall be issued are prescribed in terms of Section 9 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act categorically recognizes that the passport issued under the said Act shall at all times remain the property of the Central Government. Thus, it is clear from the scrutiny of the above referred provisions of the Act that grant of a passport to enable any person to depart from this Country is regulated by a strict legal regime. Grant or refusal of a passport is, therefore, to be confined to the legal parameters contained therein and the rules specified by the aforesaid enactment, inasmuch as the passport is the property of the Central Government and hence liable to be appropriately regulated.
Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the writ petitioner has intended to depart from this Country ostensibly for the purpose of joining the company of his wife who was said to be working at Sharja as Physical Education Teacher. It would be an altogether different thing, as to whether he would depart from this country at all or not. If ever he intends to, it is essentially required of him to possess passport. After all, all those persons who have been granted passports may not have left the country. Since he is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, he solicited the NOC to be granted by his Controlling Officer. When we examine the provisions of the Passports Act, there is no specific provision, which requires the applicant to produce any such NOC from his Controlling Officer. Schedule 3 of the Passport Rules 1980 (for short, the Rules') prescribed the application form for grant of passport, which is in conformity with Rules 5 and 11 of the Rules. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if a Government servant or a member of the Armed Forces of the Union solicits the grant of a passport, he does not in fact require to submit any such NOC along with the said application. In fact, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also drawn my attention to the various instructions contained in Chapter No.73 of Muthuswamy and Brinda's complete Manual on matters relating to Establishment and Administration for Central Government Officers (11th Edition- 2008) wherein under the title "Passports and Emigration", it is thus:
NOC is not must for Passport - An intimation to the employer is enough. An Inter-Ministerial Committee established in the cabinet Secretariat to review the system for issue of passports, made important recommendations to liberalize the issue of passports. . This committee had also examined the requirement of NOC for Government employees and had noted that by making NOC obligatory, the passport system was placing the Government employees at a disadvantage vis--vis an ordinary citizen. It was also noted that obtaining an NOC for a field level employee may itself be a source of considerable delay and harassment. Considering that the right to hold a passport flows from the Fundamental Rights of a citizen, the insistence on an NOC in case of Government servants may not be strictly legal. The Committee, therefore, recommended that an intimation by an employee to the employer that he is applying for a passport and a declaration, duly acknowledged by his Head of Office, to the effect that he has informed his employer of his intention to apply for a passport, should be adequate for acceptance and processing of his case in normal course.
However, in such cases, the passport should be issued on prior verification of citizenship and character only. Also, the employer will always have an opportunity to issue directions to the employee not to proceed abroad and refuse leave should the circumstances warrant such an action, i.e., pendency of a disciplinary enquiry on grave charges, etc., apart from advising the RPO concerned not to issue passport on grounds to be specified. 3. Therefore, on the basis of Committee's recommendation, it has been decided that henceforth, if Central/State Government officials and employees of statutory bodies and Public Undertakings apply for the passports, passports would be issued on prior verification basis, if only such declaration is submitted. In case, proper 'No Objection Certificate' is submitted, the passport will be issued without police verification. [G.I., Min. of Extl. Affairs, O.M.No.VI/401/40/83, dated the 9th July, 2002] Since, this Book is approved for references to be made, I consider that the above quoted instructions are faithfully reproduced by the Publishers. From the above decision of the Ministry of External Affairs, it becomes all the more clear that, there is no legal requirement for an applicant of a passport, even if he were to be a Government servant to secure or append to the application for grant of passport, the NOC from the Controlling Officers of such servants. It is enough if such Government servants merely intimate the Controlling Officer of his intention to apply for grant of a passport. In the instant case, what has been communicated by the writ petitioner in his representation to the Commandant of the Force is, his intention to secure a passport, which would ultimately enable him to depart from this Country later on. Therefore, for purposes of securing the passport by the writ petitioner, securing or appending the NOC from his Controlling Officer being a redundant exercise, the respondents are not justified in suggesting to the writ petitioner to come up with such a request after the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are ended. It should also be stated, in fairness to the respondents that the learned Standing Counsel has brought to my notice that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner have ended on 09.07.2010 by imposing on him the punishment of stoppage of two increments cumulatively.
Since, the action of the respondents being wholly redundant, this Writ Petition is allowed. The writ petitioner is entitled to apply for grant of a passport by the competent passport authority without appending or enclosing thereto the NOC from his Controlling Officer, but, however, subject to his intimation of applying for grant of such a passport. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.