Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr P Jayasankar vs Central Marine Fisheries Research ... on 13 May, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00326/2019
Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr. P. Jayasankar, Principal Scientist,
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
P.B. No. 1603, Ernakulam North (P.O.),
Kochi - 682 018. -Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. P.K. Madhusoodhanan ]
Versus
1. The Director,
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)
P.B. No. 1603, Ernakulam North (P.O.),
Kochi - 682 018.
2. Deputy Director General (FS)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-11, Pusa,
New Delhi - 110 012.
3. The Under Secretary (FS),
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-11, Pusa,
New Delhi - 110 012.
4. The Director General,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 114.
5. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
represented by its Secretary,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 114. -Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. Sreekala.T.K ]
2026.05.13
A X Sherin 16:06:55
+05'30'
2
The Original Application having been heard on 20.02.2026, the
Tribunal on 13.05.2026 delivered the following:
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member At the time of filing the Original Application, the applicant was the Principal Scientist in the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi. He had applied for Ex-India leave from 15 to 31 of May 2019 and in continuation half pay leave from 1st to 12th June 2019 for visiting his daughter staying and working in Texas Dallas, USA. He applied on personal grounds for availing the above leave and submitted Annexure A1 application to the competent authority. He also quoted Annexure A2 Office Memorandum touching the subject for taking prior permission for leaving station/headquarters for going abroad while on leave. The grievance of the applicant is that after 113 days of his application by Annexure A3 order dated 08.04.2019 the Ministry rejected permission stating that he is not free from Vigilance angle. The reason for rejecting the request was the pendency of a Rule 14 proceedings against him, raising certain articles of charges alleging few financial regularities. According to the applicant by communication dated 22.03.2019 the Inquiry Officer had filed report finding him not guilty stating that the charges are not proved. He has also 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 3 relied on Annexure A5 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and others (in Civil Appeal No. 3802/2019) dated 09.04.2019 where permission was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical case. Thus, he again gave Annexure A6 representation.
2. According to the applicant, after submission of the application since no reply was forthcoming within 21 days, it could have been presumed that permission is granted. Thus he made preparations for going abroad. His wife is also a Principal Scientist in C.M.F.R.I, who was granted permission for going abroad. Thus, he applied for tickets and then gave Annexure A8 representation and approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs.
(a) to set aside Annexure -A3;
(b) to issue necessary directions to the respondents to
issue permission to the applicant forthwith so as to enable him to avail Ex-India leave to visit U.S.A. as sought for in Annexure -A1, Annexures- A6 and A8;
(c) to declare that the applicant is eligible and entitled to be granted with permission to avail Ex-India leave to visit U.S.A. on personal grounds as sought for in Annexures-A1, A6 and A8;
3. According to the applicant denial of permission communicated through Annexure-A3 for visiting U.S.A. on personal grounds is prima facie 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 4 erroneous, illegal and opposed to the specific instructions containing Annexure-A2 issued by the Nodal Ministry and against the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure-A5. So he moved this Tribunal seeking urgent interim orders. According to him in the interest of justice, balance of convenience demanded to grant him permission to go abroad.
4. Further, he has submitted that the departmental inquiry has culminated in not proving the charges against him. He has not involved in any criminal case and has not suffered any punishment. No vigilance case is pending against him. No interest of security of State is involved. No investigation or inquiry of serious charges, as contemplated in Annexure-A2, is pending against him so as to deny permission. The respondents have no case that there is administrative exigencies and there is some adverse factors against the applicant so as to deny permission. There is no reasonable ground to deny permission and therefore the Annexure-A3 cannot hold good. So he moved this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Respondents filed reply statement denying the contentions in the Original Application. According to them, the applicant was served with a charge memo on 25.05.2018 and thus, at the time of making the 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 5 application he was not free from vigilance angle. His application was considered threadbare by different officers and ultimately found that since he has not been cleared from vigilance angle as per Office Memorandum No. 11012/11/2007-Estt. (A) of DoPT dated 14.12.2007, he was denied permission to go abroad.
6. The applicant filed rejoinder along with Annexure-A9 communication issued by the DoPT touching delegation of powers to the State Government and Ministries/Departments of Government of India in cases of members of All India Services proceeding abroad on Ex-India leave (excluding study leave). According to him, it has been clarified that the approval of the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities of the All India Services will no longer be required in the case of private visits abroad, which are purely personal, without any sponsorship and not linked to any official visit, on leave due and admissible, whether casual leave, earned leave, half- pay leave, leave on medical grounds and extra ordinary leave. So, according to him there is no merit in the contentions raised by the respondents.
7. Further, it has been stated that the Annexure-A3 rejection is on flimsy reasons causing great mental agony and harassment to him and family including his newly married daughter. His daughter was married on 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 6 25th June 2018 in U.S.A. while working there; earlier since he was denied sanction on vigilance angle, he could not attend the marriage and meet his son-in-law. Thereafter, the present visit is to attend the get together of family members of himself and members of the family of the son-in-law.
8. The respondents filed an additional reply statement stating that persons facing inquiry may not be permitted to leave the country. Even though, the inquiry report was in his favour, by Annexure-R-1(a) order dated 3rd December 2019, disregarding the finding of the Inquiry Officer, he was found guilty of financial irregularities and imposed a punishment of 'reducing to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and after a expiry of this period the reduction will have effect of postponing his future increments'. Such a punishment has been imposed on him.
9. In the additional rejoinder it is submitted that Annexure-R1(a) has already been challenged before this Tribunal separately. That OA is pending.
10. We heard Adv. Sri. P.K. Madhusoodhanan, learned Counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreekala T.K., learned Standing Counsel for the 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 7 respondents.
11. Evidently, at the time of making the application Annexure-A1, for going abroad on Ex-India leave, a Rule 14 proceedings [of CCS (CCA) Rules] was pending against him raising three articles of charges which read as follows:
Article of Charge-I While functioning as Director, CIFA, Bhubaneswar, Dr.P. Jayasankar was allotted Quarter No. 1 vacated by Dr. Eknath, the then Director (Retired). Instead of staying in Quarter No. 1, Dr. Jayasankar occupied Quarter No. 2, meant for Ladies Hostel by abusing his official position and further spend Rs. 8.15 lakhs (approx) for its renovation which tantamount of misuse of Govt. Fund, thereby violating the provisions Rule 21 of GFR, 2005.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayasankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of Council's employee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1) (I) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees.
Article of Charge-II
While functioning as Director, CIFA,
Bhubaneswar, Dr.P. Jayasankar spent an amount of Rs. 61,500/- (Rupees Sixty one thousand and five hundred only) out of Institute's funds for furnishing his residence. Being expenditure sanctioning authority, Dr. P. Jayasankar exercised his powers directly for his own advantage, as a result of which and expenditure of Rs.
61,500 was incurred in violation of Rule 21 of the GFR, 2005.
He refunded Rs. 26,260/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand two hundred and sixty only) to the Institute when vigilance inspection was conducted by the 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 8 Council during May, 2014.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayasankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in manner unbecoming of Council's employee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees.
Article of Charge-III
While functioning as Director, CIFA,
Bhubaneswar, Dr.P. Jayasankar sanctioned Rs. 2,57,900/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred only) for purchase of Four Split AC's for his residence. Being expenditure sanctioning Authority, Dr. P. Jayasankar exercised his powers on to his own advantage, as a result of which and expenditure of Rs. 2,57,900/- was incurred in violation of Rule 21 of the GFR, 2005.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayasankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in manner unbecoming of Council's employee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees.
12. Referring to Annexure-A4, it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges are not proved. According to the applicant, even if such a charge was pending, there was no legal impediment in permitting him to move abroad on a personal visit for attending some family function in U.S.A. In fact Annexure-A2 Office Memorandum touching the subject also does not create any legal impediment in denying such a request. From Annexure-A2, it is clear that 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 9 while granting such permission, many factors are required to be kept in mind. For example, permission may be denied in the interest of security, individuals facing investigation/inquiry on serious charges, who may try to evade apprehension by police authorities, or facing the inquiry may also not be permitted to leave the country. Here, as a matter of fact, such contingencies were not there. No one has a case that he had been facing any criminal investigation or police charge. The reason for stated that he was not free from vigilance clearance was the pendency of a Rule 14 proceedings, but a report was already filed by the Inquiry Officer stating that the charges were not proved. Even though the disciplinary authority did not agree with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer and ultimately found him guilty of financial irregularities and imposed a punishment on him, for two reasons, we are of the opinion that there was no ground for rejecting his request for going abroad at that time. Firstly, as stated earlier it was purely a personal visit which was not related to any official discharge of functions. Earlier in 2018 he had applied for going abroad to attend the marriage of his daughter, who was studying and working in USA. It appears that the marriage was arranged by the girl herself. Applicant had then applied for going abroad but it was rejected since proceedings were 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 10 pending against him. At that time, the charge sheet was pending against him and the inquiry had not started. The rejection of request, Annexures- A3, is not in line with Annexure-A2 standing instructions.
13. Secondly, such denial can be done only on the grounds of threat to security, or the individual facing investigation and facing inquiry of serious charges, who may try to evade apprehension by police authorities etc. Here, there is no security threat as regards the travel of the applicant. Again, he was not facing any investigation. Moreover, the inquiry conducted against him was not serious in nature. There were only allegations of certain financial irregularities, as quoted supra. Even the respondents have no case that he would evade the process or will not get back on the expiry of the proposed leave period.
14. In this connection, the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annexure-A5 is also very relevant. In an identical case, when permission was denied to an All India Service Officer, an I.P.S Officer of Tamil Nadu cadre moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that it is a matter touching the fundamental right to travel and such a right cannot be infringed on the ground that vigilance clearance has not been given. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows.
2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 11 " The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows:
"Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance."
In the instant case, the appellant who is a member of the All India Services has paid leave to his credit and has applied to go to U.S.A. and France to visit members of his family who are residing there. On an earlier occasion this court permitted him to travel to U.S.A. in the year 2017 and he promptly came back.
We are of the opinion that pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent the appellant from travelling abroad.
15. In our opinion, Annexure-A3 cannot stand judicial scrutiny. There was no overwhelming reason for denying him sanction for visiting abroad availing Ex-India leave. He was not facing any serious allegations. The pendency of proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was not a good reason for denying permission. The Annexure-A2 Office Memorandum itself suggests that what should govern the respondents is whether there are serious cases against the delinquent officer, whether he is likely to evade the process etc. In fact the pendency of such proceedings 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30' 12 touching allegations of financial irregularities was not a valid reason for denying him permission. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside Annexure-A3. Annexure-A3 is quashed.
16. In fact, by lapse of time, the Original Application has become redundant. The applicant has already visited abroad and came back as scheduled. Therefore, if at all there was basis in any such apprehension, since he had come back as scheduled, that apprehension has lost significance. Even though the OA has become infructuous and there is no prayer to regularize the leave period, in the interest of justice, we would mould the relief in such a manner, in the light of subsequent developments. In fine, the respondents are directed to regularize the period of absence of the applicant from 15.05.2019 till 12.06.2019. This shall be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The O.A is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated, this the 13th day of May, 2026)
BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
rkr
2026.05.13
A X Sherin 16:06:55
+05'30'
13
List of Annexures in OA/180/00326/2019
Annexure A1: True copy of the duly filled up application for grant of Ex-
India leave along with covering letter dated 26.12.2018. Annexure A2: True copy of the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2015 issued by the Under Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training (Establishment Division, New Delhi-1) Annexure A3: True copy of the Letter F.No. F.S.3/5/2019-IA.VI, dated 08.04.2019 of the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A4: True copy of the inquiry report along with covering letter dated 22.03.2019.
Annexure A5: True copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3802/2019 dated 09.04.2019. Annexure A6: True copy of the representation dated 18.04.2019 to the 4 respondent with copies to the 1st and 5th respondents. th Annexure A7: True copy of the Air Tickets for travel for both the applicant and his wife.
Annexure A8: True copy of the request dated 10.05.2019 before the 4 th respondent with copies to others.
Annexure A9: True copy of the Govt. of India, DoPT circular No. 11019/06/2001-AIS-III dated 05.12.2007.
Annexure R1 (a): A true copy of the order No. 3-10/2014-DA&A dated 03.12.2019 issued by the 5th respondent.
****** 2026.05.13 A X Sherin 16:06:55 +05'30'