Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Prem Saral Wd/O Late Shri Ajay Saral vs Director Of Education on 11 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3452/2011 Tuesday, this the 11th day of October 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Dr. Prem Saral wd/o Late Shri Ajay Saral, aged 53 years Vice Principal, SKV No.1, Jama Masjid, Delhi Dte. Of Edn., Govt. of NCT of Delhi At present posted as State Coordinate Population, Education Cell B K Dutta Colony, Karbala Market, New Delhi Resident of 137 Dayanand Vihar (IInd Floor), Delhi-92 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. U S Choudhary) Versus 1. Director of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt., Delhi 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi Through its Chief Secretary 3. Asstt. Director of Education (GOC) Dte. Of Edn., Old Sectt., Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice V.K. Bali:
Dr. Prem Saral, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a declaration from this Tribunal to declare the impugned communication dated 6.9.2011 rejecting her application for issuance of NOC for passport and permission to go to Nottingham (U.K.) on the occasion of the marriage of her son as totally arbitrary and illegal. The marriage of the son of the applicant is to be solemnized on 19.11.2011. The only reason given by the respondents is that the show cause notice for holding the disciplinary inquiry against the applicant was issued on 1.1.2008, to which even though the applicant responded, but no further proceedings thereafter have been taken.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed a short reply.
3. When put to counsel for respondents that how could NOC for obtaining passport or permission to go abroad be refused to the applicant, which may be her right, only on account of some contemplated action against her, no satisfactory reply is forthcoming. We are of the considered view that simply because the respondents issued a memo to the applicant way back in 2008, after which no proceedings have been taken, would not be a good ground at all to refuse NOC and permission to the applicant.
4. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel defending the respondents, would, however, say that the Tribunal may ask the applicant to give an undertaking that after solemnizing her sons marriage, she would return to India within a reasonable time. There cannot be any exception to the only plea raised by the counsel defending the respondents, as mentioned above.
5. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct the concerned respondent to forthwith issue NOC and permission to the applicant to go abroad, which would be subject to the applicant giving an undertaking to the concerned authority that she would return to India within a month of her sons marriage.
6. In view of above, OA is disposed of. No costs.
Process dasti.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V.K. Bali ) Member (A) Chairman /sunil/