Charge-sheet served two days after court notice. Court still let him fly.

When a charge-sheet arrived two days after the court notice

Neeraj Saxena is 59 years old. He works for Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. (REIL) — a government instrumentality. He wanted to visit his son in Singapore for six days, from 30 October to 4 November 2024. On 26 September 2024, he applied to his employer for permission. He got no response. So he approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. On 19 October 2024, the court issued notice to REIL. Two days later, on 21 October 2024, the department served Saxena with a charge-sheet. Then it argued: he cannot travel abroad because a departmental enquiry is pending.

The stakes were simple. A 59-year-old employee wanted to see his son. His employer wanted to stop him. And the timing of the charge-sheet — two days after the court notice — looked suspicious. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand saw it.

The application that went nowhere

Saxena filed his travel application on 26 September 2024. He gave REIL over three weeks to respond. Nothing happened. No approval. No rejection. Just silence. By 19 October 2024, he had no choice but to file a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The court issued notice that same day and listed the matter for 23 October 2024.

Then came the charge-sheet. Dated 21 October 2024. Two days after the court notice. The department served it on Saxena and then told the court: We have initiated departmental proceedings against this employee. He cannot travel abroad while an enquiry is pending.

The court was not impressed. It noted the sequence of events and drew an inference: the charge-sheet was served "to defeat the purpose of the instant writ petition." That is strong language from a single-judge bench. It signals that courts will not tolerate strategic timing of disciplinary action in response to litigation.

What each side argued

Saxena's counsel argued that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. A pending departmental enquiry cannot take that right away. He relied on Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 3802/2019, decided on 09.04.2019), where the Supreme Court held exactly that.

REIL's counsel argued the opposite. The department had served a charge-sheet. An enquiry was pending. The employee could not be allowed to leave the country while the department needed his presence. The department's interest in conducting the enquiry, they said, trumped the employee's desire to travel.

The court had to decide: does a pending departmental enquiry automatically extinguish the fundamental right to travel abroad?

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

Justice Dhand went back to first principles. He started with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597). That landmark judgment held that the expression "personal liberty" under Article 21 has a wide amplitude. It includes the right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.

Then he turned to Satish Chandra Verma. That case was directly on point. The Supreme Court had held: "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right nourishing the independent and self-determining creative character of the individual. Pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent a person from travelling abroad."

The court also referred to Kent v. Dulles (357 US 116, 1958), an American case that recognised the freedom to travel abroad as a basic human right of great significance.

The ratio was clear. The right to travel abroad is part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21. It cannot be curtailed merely because a departmental charge-sheet has been served and a domestic enquiry is pending. The department cannot use the pendency of proceedings as a blanket veto over an employee's fundamental rights.

The balancing act the court performed

But the court did not stop there. It recognised that the department has a legitimate interest in conducting its enquiry. The employee must participate. The department must be able to proceed. So the court did not simply order REIL to grant permission unconditionally. It imposed conditions.

Saxena was directed to:

• Return to India on or before 6 November 2024
• Furnish an undertaking before the court and the department that he would return
• Appear before the department after his return to participate in the domestic enquiry
• Not visit any country except Singapore

The department, in turn, was directed to grant permission for the travel from 30 October to 4 November 2024. If Saxena did not return within the time granted, the department would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The department was also free to proceed with the departmental enquiry in accordance with law.

This is the template. The court balanced the fundamental right against the departmental interest by imposing conditions — not by denying permission altogether.

THE PLAY: When a department tries to block foreign travel by serving a charge-sheet after a court notice, the court will infer mala fides and grant conditional permission — but only if the employee gives a binding undertaking to return and participate in the enquiry.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a weapon. If your client is an employee of a government instrumentality or public sector undertaking, and the department serves a charge-sheet suspiciously close to a court hearing on travel permission, you can cite Neeraj Saxena v. REIL (2024:RJ-JP:44683) to argue mala fides. The court has already drawn that inference. You can ask the court to do the same.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different. If your company is a government instrumentality, do not use departmental proceedings as a litigation tactic. The court will see through it. And if you have a genuine concern about an employee travelling abroad during an enquiry, you must raise it before the court — not by serving a charge-sheet after receiving a court notice. The timing matters. The court will draw adverse inferences.

For the employee, the takeaway is practical. You have a fundamental right to travel abroad. But you must cooperate. Give an undertaking. Promise to return. Promise to participate in the enquiry. The court will protect your right, but it will also hold you to your word.

The bottom line

A pending departmental charge-sheet does not automatically extinguish the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 — the court will grant conditional permission if the employee gives a binding undertaking to return and participate in the enquiry, and will draw adverse inferences if the charge-sheet was served strategically after receiving court notice.