No blanket ban on govt. staff facing cases from going abroad
CHENNAI, DECEMBER 25, 2018 00:00 IST
HC asks heads of department not to refuse genuine requests
Relaxing the rules related to granting permission to government servants to undertake foreign trips, the Madras High Court held that, henceforth, heads of department need not deny permission to every other employee against whom a disciplinary proceeding or a vigilance case had been either contemplated or pending.
Justice S. Vimala held the decision to grant permission could be taken on a case-by-case basis. The judgment was passed on a writ petition filed by an Inspector of Police, attached to the modern control room of Greater Chennai police, seeking permission to visit holy places in Israel, Jordan, Jerusalem and Egypt.
Pilgrimage trip
The petitioner contended that following the unnatural death of his wife and daughter recently, he wanted to go on a trip to the holy lands for restoring his peace of mind. However, his higher officials refused to grant a ‘no objection certificate’ citing a vigilance inquiry pending against him.
Since permission was denied in view of a Government Order issued on December 4, 1997 listing the restrictions for grant of NOC, he urged the court to quash the G.O. and issue a consequential direction to Commissioner of Police to grant him permission besides sanctioning 16 days of earned leave for the foreign trip.
The G.O. read: “The heads of department, before granting NOC, shall ensure that no disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated, no vigilance case is pending or contemplated against a government servant and there are no grounds to believe that the applicant could figure adversely on the security records of the government.”
Observing that the G.O. need not be struck down in its entirety, Mr. Justice Vimala said it would suffice if the term ‘shall’ used in it was read as ‘may.’ If such an interpretation was given to the executive order, it would be open to heads of department to take a call on case-by-case basis without rejecting even genuine requests.
Conditions for travel
The HoDs, however, would be entitled to impose conditions such as a bar on taking up a job or undergoing a study programme during the stay abroad or making the government liable for the travel expenses. The employees could also be prohibited from canvassing for business or tendering resignation from a foreign country.
In so far as the present case was concerned, Special Government Pleader A.N. Thambidurai insisted that the petitioner submit his entire itinerary. After recording his submission, the judge said it would be open to the Commissioner of Police to impose any reasonable condition for grant of NOC.
CHENNAI, DECEMBER 25, 2018 00:00 IST
HC asks heads of department not to refuse genuine requests
Relaxing the rules related to granting permission to government servants to undertake foreign trips, the Madras High Court held that, henceforth, heads of department need not deny permission to every other employee against whom a disciplinary proceeding or a vigilance case had been either contemplated or pending.
Justice S. Vimala held the decision to grant permission could be taken on a case-by-case basis. The judgment was passed on a writ petition filed by an Inspector of Police, attached to the modern control room of Greater Chennai police, seeking permission to visit holy places in Israel, Jordan, Jerusalem and Egypt.
Pilgrimage trip
The petitioner contended that following the unnatural death of his wife and daughter recently, he wanted to go on a trip to the holy lands for restoring his peace of mind. However, his higher officials refused to grant a ‘no objection certificate’ citing a vigilance inquiry pending against him.
Since permission was denied in view of a Government Order issued on December 4, 1997 listing the restrictions for grant of NOC, he urged the court to quash the G.O. and issue a consequential direction to Commissioner of Police to grant him permission besides sanctioning 16 days of earned leave for the foreign trip.
The G.O. read: “The heads of department, before granting NOC, shall ensure that no disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated, no vigilance case is pending or contemplated against a government servant and there are no grounds to believe that the applicant could figure adversely on the security records of the government.”
Observing that the G.O. need not be struck down in its entirety, Mr. Justice Vimala said it would suffice if the term ‘shall’ used in it was read as ‘may.’ If such an interpretation was given to the executive order, it would be open to heads of department to take a call on case-by-case basis without rejecting even genuine requests.
Conditions for travel
The HoDs, however, would be entitled to impose conditions such as a bar on taking up a job or undergoing a study programme during the stay abroad or making the government liable for the travel expenses. The employees could also be prohibited from canvassing for business or tendering resignation from a foreign country.
In so far as the present case was concerned, Special Government Pleader A.N. Thambidurai insisted that the petitioner submit his entire itinerary. After recording his submission, the judge said it would be open to the Commissioner of Police to impose any reasonable condition for grant of NOC.
No comments:
Post a Comment