Introduction

This judgment addresses a recurring and practically significant problem for government employees seeking to apply for or renew passports: whether the employer can refuse to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) merely because departmental proceedings (DP) or vigilance/criminal cases are pending. The petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera, a State Government doctor due to retire on 31 January 2026, sought an NOC to enable his passport application so he could visit his daughter and grandchild in Singapore. His department refused the NOC, citing unauthorized absence and the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

The case thus raised the key constitutional issue of whether an executive circular and an administrative practice could effectively curtail a citizen’s fundamental right to travel abroad—recognized as part of personal liberty under Article 21—by indirectly preventing a government employee from even applying for a passport.

The High Court’s ruling squarely applies the doctrine of “no deprivation of personal liberty save by procedure established by law” and condemns indirect executive curbs that are not anchored in enacted legislation. It also affirms the presumption of innocence and clarifies the proper interface between the Passports Act 1967, the Passport Manual 2020, and State-level administrative instructions.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court quashed the orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 by which the Health & Family Welfare Department refused to issue NOC to the petitioner.
• It held that the State’s reliance on a Home Department letter dated 28.01.2014—suggesting NOC is issued only where no departmental proceeding is pending/contemplated—cannot lawfully operate to deny an employee’s right to apply for a passport. Such a denial indirectly infringes Article 21 and is impermissible absent an enacted law authorizing it.
• The Court noted that neither the Passports Act, 1967 nor the Passport Manual, 2020 imposes an absolute bar on grant of passport merely because a disciplinary or even a criminal proceeding is pending.
• Reaffirming the presumption of innocence and the discretionary—not automatic—nature of actions under the Passports Act, the Court directed the authorities to issue the NOC within six weeks.

Factual Background and Procedural History

• The petitioner, a government doctor, applied online for a passport to visit his daughter in Singapore. Being a government servant, he required an NOC from his employer.
• His first NOC request (09.06.2022) was rejected (12.07.2022) citing unauthorized absence since 28.09.2013 and pendency of three departmental proceedings.
• He filed W.P.(C) No. 24138 of 2023; by order dated 22.07.2024, the High Court granted liberty to re-apply if circumstances changed.
• He re-applied on 09.09.2024, informing that one of three departmental proceedings had been dropped; nonetheless, the NOC was again refused on 21.03.2025. He also disclosed that one vigilance case (VGR 13/2012) resulted in acquittal; another (VGR 34/2013) was charge-sheeted but the trial had not commenced; he undertook to cooperate with the vigilance court.
• The State justified refusal by referring to a State Home Department letter (28.01.2014) indicating NOC may be issued if no departmental proceeding is pending/contemplated.
• The Regional Passport Officer (RPO) pointed to Passport Manual 2020 (paras 4.23–4.25) that require a government employee to produce either an Identity Certificate, an NOC, or a Prior Intimation Certificate; the RPO stated the requirement cannot be waived and that NOC issuance is an employer-side issue.

Issues

• Whether the State Government can deny an NOC for passport to a serving employee solely because departmental/vigilance proceedings are pending, based on an executive instruction.
• Whether such denial indirectly violates the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 in the absence of an enacted law authorizing it.
• How the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Manual, 2020 interface with State-level executive directions on NOC.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

  The Constitution Bench held that the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 has the widest amplitude and includes the right to travel abroad; deprivation is permissible only by a “procedure established by law,” i.e., enacted law—not by executive fiat. The Orissa High Court invokes this bedrock principle to condemn the State’s reliance on a mere departmental letter to curtail the right, albeit indirectly through denial of NOC.

• Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, AIR 1967 SC 1836.

  Recognized the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty, prompting the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967. By referencing this lineage through Maneka Gandhi, the judgment emphasizes that the field is governed by statute, and executive instructions cannot displace statutory/constitutional guarantees.

• Suresh Nanda v. CBI, (2008) 3 SCC 674.

  Reaffirmed that impounding a passport entails civil consequences and requires the authority to exercise discretion judiciously with reasons; pendency of a case is not an automatic trigger for impounding. The Orissa High Court uses this reasoning, via its prior decision in Ashok Kumar Sipani, to highlight that even under explicit statutory power, the action is discretionary and reason-laden—not automatic. A fortiori, a blanket NOC refusal by executive letter cannot be sustained.

• Mohammad Umar (Allahabad High Court).

  Interpreted Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act: the word “may” confers discretion; pendency of criminal proceedings does not mandate impounding. The Orissa High Court adopts that interpretive approach to reinforce that pendency per se is insufficient for adverse passport action, much less for an NOC refusal under a non-statutory instruction.

• Ashok Kumar Sipani v. Union of India (Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No. 30881 of 2022).

  The Court previously held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically attract passport impounding; individualized reasons are required. This judgment carries that logic over to the NOC stage—if even impounding under statute is discretionary and reasoned, a blanket NOC denial under an executive circular cannot stand.

• NITIN KAPOOR v. STATE OF ODISHA (DGGI), 2024 (III) ILR-CUT-777.

  The High Court permitted foreign travel subject to conditions, emphasizing presumption of innocence, the petitioner’s travel history, absence of default, and minimal flight risk. This supports the approach that tailored conditions, not blanket prohibitions, are the constitutionally compatible tool.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework Considered

• Passports Act, 1967.

  The Court notes that the Act does not impose an absolute bar on issuing or renewing passports on the ground of the pendency of disciplinary or even criminal proceedings. Even where the Act provides power to refuse/impound (e.g., Sections 6 and 10), those powers are discretionary and require reasons.

• Passport Manual, 2020 (Paras 4.23–4.25).

  These provisions require government/PSU employees to submit either an Identity Certificate (Annexure A), an NOC (Annexure G), or a Prior Intimation Certificate/self-declaration (Annexure H). The Manual emphasizes that this requirement is not waivable for government/PSU employees, but also offers alternatives to NOC. Importantly, the Court notes that the legality of this Manual requirement was not challenged and hence was not examined.

• State Home Department Letter dated 28.01.2014 (Odisha).

  The letter suggested that Departments “may issue” NOCs if no departmental proceeding is pending or contemplated. The Court found that, in effect, it operated as a blanket bar whenever a proceeding was pending—an indirect but real curb on applying for a passport. As a mere executive instruction, it cannot override Article 21; it is neither enacted law nor a statutory rule.

Core Legal Reasoning

• Indirect deprivation of Article 21 by executive instruction is impermissible.

  Maneka Gandhi’s ratio applies with full force: the right to travel abroad, situated within personal liberty, can be curtailed only by “procedure established by law,” i.e., enacted legislation. A departmental letter cannot lawfully place an embargo—direct or indirect—on that right. By conditioning NOC on the absence of any DP and using NOC as a mandatory gateway to the passport process for government employees, the State effectively curtailed the right via an extra-statutory barrier.

• No absolute statutory bar on passports due to pendency of proceedings.

  The Passports Act contains discretionary tools (e.g., Sections 6 and 10) that must be exercised with reasons. The Court stresses that there is no “automatic” refusal/impounding built into the statute solely because proceedings are pending. Thus, a blanket NOC refusal is inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

• Presumption of innocence and case-specific assessment.

  Pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings is not a finding of guilt. The State’s approach inverted this principle by treating pendency as dispositive. Even where risks exist (e.g., flight risk, interference with process), the law requires individualized assessment and calibrated measures, not blanket denials.

• Scope confined: Passport Manual requirement not under challenge.

  The Court carefully circumscribed its ruling. It did not test the legality of the Passport Manual’s requirement of IC/NOC/Prior Intimation for government employees. Instead, it focused on the State’s refusal to issue NOC by invoking an executive letter, holding that such refusal cannot stand on that basis alone.

Impact and Prospective Significance

• For Odisha Government Departments:
  • Departments can no longer refuse NOCs merely because a DP or criminal/vigilance case is pending or contemplated. The 28.01.2014 Home Department letter cannot be used as a blanket bar.
  • Decision-making must be individualized, reasoned, and consistent with constitutional and statutory standards. Where risks are cited, they must be concrete and addressed with proportionate conditions rather than absolute denial.
  • The judgment effectively requires a relook at standard operating practices around NOCs for passport purposes.
• For Government Employees:
  • Pendency of DP/criminal proceedings no longer serves as an automatic ground for denial of NOC in Odisha.
  • Employees may still need to comply with Passport Manual requirements (IC/NOC/Prior Intimation) and, where applicable, obtain court permission if criminal proceedings are pending, as per the central legal framework.
• For Passport Authorities:
  • The Manual’s triad—IC, NOC, or Prior Intimation—remains intact. This judgment primarily curtails State-level blanket refusals of NOC; it does not invalidate the Manual’s requirements or the statutory scheme.
• Persuasive Value Beyond Odisha:
  • Other States using similar executive practices may need to revisit their NOC protocols to avoid indirect violations of Article 21.
• Administrative Law and Constitutional Doctrine:
  • The judgment reinforces the prohibition on using executive instructions to achieve what only legislation can: any restraint on a fundamental right must have statutory backing and satisfy constitutional scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• No Objection Certificate (NOC):

  An employer-side document indicating the employer has no objection to an employee’s passport application. For government/PSU employees, the Passport Manual requires either an Identity Certificate (IC), an NOC, or a Prior Intimation Certificate/self-declaration.

• Identity Certificate (IC) and Prior Intimation:

  IC is a certification by the controlling authority. Prior Intimation is a self-declaration by the employee that the employer has been informed of the passport application. The Manual treats the requirement (IC/NOC/Prior Intimation) as non-waivable for government/PSU employees.

• Departmental Proceeding (DP):

  An internal disciplinary process against a government employee for alleged misconduct. It is not a criminal trial and does not by itself establish guilt.

• Vigilance/Criminal Proceedings:

  Investigations/prosecutions for offences. Pendency indicates an ongoing process, not conviction. Courts emphasize presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

• Article 21—Personal Liberty:

  Includes the right to travel abroad. Any deprivation must be “according to procedure established by law,” meaning enacted legislation, not executive instructions. Even when the law authorizes restrictions, they must be reasonable, proportionate, and supported by reasons.

• Impounding/Refusal under Passports Act:

  Sections 6 and 10 empower refusal/impounding in defined situations. Courts consistently read these powers as discretionary and reason-bound; mere pendency of a case does not automatically compel adverse action.

Observations on Ancillary Points

• Unauthorized Absence:

  While the State cited unauthorized absence as a ground, the judgment treats such allegations as part of the disciplinary landscape and subject to the presumption of innocence and due process. The underlying point remains: allegations or pendency of proceedings cannot, by executive instruction, be converted into a categorical bar on an Article 21 right.

• NOC versus Permission to Travel/Leave:

  An NOC for passport is not the same as sanction of foreign travel or grant of leave. Employers retain disciplinary control and may regulate actual travel and leave as per law. The judgment addresses only the threshold: denial of NOC cannot be a blanket tool to block a passport application.

• Tailored Safeguards:

  Where genuine risks exist (e.g., non-appearance before courts), authorities can seek tailored safeguards consistent with law (undertakings, timely intimation of travel, ensuring court permissions where applicable) instead of absolute denial.

Key Takeaways

• Executive instructions cannot be used to indirectly curtail fundamental rights. Denying NOC to a government employee solely because a departmental/criminal proceeding is pending is unconstitutional absent statutory authority.
• The Passports Act does not impose an absolute bar on passports due to pendency; actions like refusal or impounding are discretionary and must be reasoned.
• Pendency is not guilt. Presumption of innocence and individualized assessment must guide decisions affecting personal liberty.
• Passport Manual’s requirement of IC/NOC/Prior Intimation remains; this judgment targets the State’s blanket NOC refusals based on a non-statutory circular.
• Departments in Odisha must align NOC practices with this ruling; similarly placed employees can seek relief if refused NOC on blanket grounds.

Conclusion

In Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha, the Orissa High Court decisively reasserts a constitutional guardrail: fundamental rights cannot be compromised through executive short-cuts. By holding that a State department cannot withhold an NOC for a passport purely because a departmental or criminal proceeding is pending, the Court imports Maneka Gandhi’s Article 21 discipline into the day-to-day administration of NOCs for government employees. The judgment harmonizes constitutional protections with the statutory scheme of the Passports Act and the operational framework of the Passport Manual, while preserving space for case-specific, proportionate safeguards where truly warranted.

Practically, the ruling requires Odisha’s administrative departments to abandon blanket NOC refusals grounded in the 2014 executive letter and to adopt individualized, reasoned decision-making consistent with statutory and constitutional norms. Conceptually, it stands as a significant reaffirmation that indirect, extra-statutory embargoes on personal liberty are as impermissible as direct ones. The decision is poised to influence administrative practice and future litigation on the intersection of service law, passport regulation, and fundamental rights.

Disposition

• Writ petition allowed.
• Orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 refusing NOC quashed.
• Authorities directed to issue NOC within six weeks.