TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Travel Permission Denied: Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Pending Charge Memos</h1> <h3>Satish Chandra Verma, I.P.S. Versus Union of India Directorate General, Training Directorate, CRPF And The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,</h3> The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to deny permission for the petitioner to travel abroad due to pending charge memos. ... Grant of an interim order permitting him to travel abroad - the Vigilance Department has not cleared the petitioner's request for undertaking private foreign visit to two countries - HELD THAT:- The vigilance mechanism in any establishment is an internal mechanism to ensure that the concerned department functions in a proper manner and the officers and employees do not transgress the powers conferred on them. Thus, in our considered view, at this stage of the matter, we would not be justified in substituting our view for that of the vigilance views as recorded in the communication dated 14.12.2018 since the main matter is still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal was right in observing that if interim prayer is allowed, then, virtually it would amount to granting the main relief itself - the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order for grant of interim permission to travel abroad.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal denying permission to travel abroad due to pending charge memos. The petitioner argued that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that vigilance clearance was not necessary for a private foreign visit and cited relevant executive instructions. The petitioner had previously traveled abroad with permission from the Supreme Court. The High Court noted that the vigilance mechanism is essential for proper departmental functioning and refrained from substituting its view for that of the vigilance department. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that granting the interim prayer would amount to granting the main relief. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition.In summary, the High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to deny permission for the petitioner to travel abroad due to pending charge memos. The Court emphasized the importance of vigilance clearance in departmental functioning and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
