Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1261 (DEL)

BRAHAM PAL SINGH GAUTAM v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-12-18

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2003
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is seeking the quashing of the impounding circular/order dated 10. 11. 2003, bearing No. VI/405/2/82/03 whereby the petitioner s passport No. E-1258052 dated 21. 3. 2002 issued by the Regional passport Office, New Delhi has been ordered to be impounded under the provision of Section 10 (3) (a), (b) and (c) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). ( 3 ) PRIOR to the passing of the impounding circular, a show cause notice dated 15. 10. 2003 had been issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the passport should not be impounded under Section 10 (3) (b) of the said Act on the allegation that while applying for the passport which was impounded i. e. passport E-1258052 dated 21. 3. 2002, the petitioner had not disclosed the factum of his official passport No. O-103585 dated 05. 02. 2001 in the application form. As such, it was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of suppression and, therefore, the petitioner s passport was liable to be impounded in view of the provisions of the said Act. By a reply dated 23. 10. 2003, the petitioner stated that the official passport No. O-103585 dated 05. 02. 2001 had been lost in London while he was travelling by bus from the Shopping Centre in Stratford. It was stated that information of the loss of the passport along with other bank cards etc was duly lodged with the police and the same was submitted to the High Commission of India, London along with all the relevant documents. It was also indicated in the reply that after the loss of the official passport, the petitioner was issued an Emergency Certificate on which he travelled to India in February 2002. It was further disclosed that while in India, the petitioner applied for an ordinary passport and upon this application, the petitioner was issued the now impounded passport. In the said reply, the petitioner further apologised for the non-disclosure of the emergency certificate and of the official passport in the following terms: "i regret and apologise that I was not aware of the passport procedures and I mention in my present passport the number etc. In the said reply, the petitioner further apologised for the non-disclosure of the emergency certificate and of the official passport in the following terms: "i regret and apologise that I was not aware of the passport procedures and I mention in my present passport the number etc. of the Emergency Certificate on which I traveled. I honestly believed that the Official Passport which was lost in London has been reported to the HCI, London and on that basis I was issued with the EC, and I was not at all aware of the serious consequences I would be facing. " ( 4 ) THE impounding circular has been issued and the petitioner s passport No. E-1258052 dated 21. 3. 2002 has been impounded for the reason that the petitioner had suppressed material information while applying for the said passport at the Regional Passport Office, Delhi and the petitioner had not submitted a `no Objection Certificate from the Ministry of External Affairs, as he was required to do, being a Government servant. It was also indicated that the petitioner had not made any disclosure in the application form about the fact that he previously held an official passport, nor did he disclose the factum of the issuance of the emergency certificate to him from the High Commission of India, London. In view of these suppressions, the passport of the petitioner has been impounded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was done inadvertently and under some mistaken impression. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had been relieved of his duties in the High Commission of India at London on 05. 05. 1993 and thereafter he also submitted his resignation in January 2002 to the High Commission of India at London. It is stated that the petitioner also submitted a further resignation to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi on 02. 02. 2002 and that the petitioner was under the impression that he was no longer a Government servant. Mere submission of resignation does not amount to cessation of the relationship between the employee and employer. There is nothing on record to show that the resignation had been accepted. On the contrary, while the petitioner submitted that he was no longer in Government service yet he knowingly obtained the official passport No. O-103585 dated 05. 02. Mere submission of resignation does not amount to cessation of the relationship between the employee and employer. There is nothing on record to show that the resignation had been accepted. On the contrary, while the petitioner submitted that he was no longer in Government service yet he knowingly obtained the official passport No. O-103585 dated 05. 02. 2001 which he claims to have lost in London and in lieu of which the emergency certificate was issued by the High Commission of India at London. An official passport would not be issued to the petitioner if he was not in Government Service. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that he was under the impression that he was not in Government service is clearly untenable. The fact remains that the petitioner was in government service and he also understood accordingly. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the photocopy of the passport application made by the petitioner on the basis of which the passport which has been impounded was issued. Paragraph 8 of the application form requires the applicant to indicate his profession. In this paragraph, the petitioner has written private service ("pvt service" ). In paragraph 8 (i) the question asked is - are you an employee of Central/state Government/psu/statutory Bodies? And, the answer given by the petitioner is `no . Again under paragraph 12, the applicant was required to disclose whether the applicant held or applied for an ordinary/diplomatic/official passport or other travel document. The answer given by the petitioner is `no . If the answer given by the applicant is `yes then he is required to give further details like the passport office file number, passport/travel document number, date of application/issue, place of application/issue and whether the passport was valid. Since the petitioner gave the answer `no , he scored out all these sub-paragraphs and entered "na" (i. e. Not Applicable ). Paragraph 13 also requires the applicant to indicate whether the passport contains a valid Visa and if `yes the applicant is required to attach a copy of the first four and last four pages of the passport including the valid visa page. The petitioner here also gave the answer `no . Paragraph 13 also requires the applicant to indicate whether the passport contains a valid Visa and if `yes the applicant is required to attach a copy of the first four and last four pages of the passport including the valid visa page. The petitioner here also gave the answer `no . It is apparent from the aforesaid and the reply given by the petitioner which is in his own hand that the true and correct state of affairs has not been stated in the application form. It is also to be noted that at the end of the application form, the applicant has to, inter alia, make a declaration into following effect: " The information given by me is true and I am solely responsible for its accuracy. I am aware that it is an offence under the Passport Act, 1967 to furnish any false information or to suppress any material information with a view to obtaining passport or any other travel document. " ( 6 ) THE petitioner who was an employee of the Ministry of External Affairs and was working with the High Commission of India at London could not be imputed with ignorance of these provisions, particularly, when the High Commission normally deals with passports. In any event, ignorance of law is no defence. The petitioner suppressed material information in the application form and accordingly, the respondent issued a show cause notice requiring the petitioner to explain the suppression. Upon receipt of reply from the petitioner, which essentially contains an admission, the impounding circular was issued. There is no infirmity in the decision making process adopted nor is there any shortcoming in the action of the authorities in issuing the impounding circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the maximum penalty that can be levied against the petitioner, insofar as the departmental proceedings continuing against him are concerned, is that he may be dismissed from service and he is ready and willing to accept that penalty. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the departmental proceedings are in the final stages and they are awaiting the order from the UPSC which in all likelihood would come within a month in which case the petitioner would be relieved of his service with the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the departmental proceedings are in the final stages and they are awaiting the order from the UPSC which in all likelihood would come within a month in which case the petitioner would be relieved of his service with the respondent. It would be open to the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport after disclosing the true facts and circumstances and it will be open for the Passport Authorities to consider his application and decide the same in accordance with law. With these directions, the writ petition is dismissed.