The Tripura High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Sonvir Singh, a Rifleman (GD) bearing No.08121114 in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR), challenging his dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority on 31 August 2016. Justice Biswajit Palit, in his judgment dated 22 April 2026 delivered in W.P.(C) No.203 of 2025, held that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner had joined the TSR on 28 November 2008 and was posted at 3rd Battalion TSR, Kachucherra, Dhalai District. He proceeded on 30 days’ commuted leave on medical grounds from 23 December 2014 to 21 January 2015 but failed to resume duty thereafter and remained unauthorisedly absent. During this period, he became involved in two serious criminal cases at Shlampur Police Station, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh — Case No.207/2014 under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/504 IPC and Case No.39/2015 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was arrested on 6 January 2015 and remained in judicial custody for over 10 years (until September 2024).

A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorised absence. The Inquiry Officer issued multiple notices dated 12.06.2015, 24.06.2015, 03.07.2015, 25.07.2015 and the final notice on 05.08.2015. These notices were duly served upon him through the jail authorities. Despite receipt of the notices, the petitioner neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer, nor submitted any written statement of defence, nor engaged any counsel or authorised representative. The Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex parte and submitted his report. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Commandant, 3rd Bn TSR, passed a provisional dismissal order dated 04.03.2016 and, after considering the petitioner’s representation, imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service under Section 12(1) of the TSR Act, 1983 vide order dated 31.08.2016. The period of his overstay leave was treated as “Dies-Non”.

The petitioner contended before the High Court that since he was in jail during the entire departmental proceeding, he could not submit his defence or appear before the Inquiry Officer, and therefore the principles of natural justice were violated. He also claimed to have preferred an appeal against the dismissal order which, according to him, remained undecided.

The State-respondents, represented by Mr. Karnajit De, learned Additional Government Advocate, filed a detailed counter-affidavit and strongly opposed the petition. It was pointed out that the petitioner was duly served with all notices through the jail authorities but chose not to participate or appoint any representative. The State further submitted that the petitioner never filed any statutory appeal before the competent Appellate Authority and had only submitted a joining application addressed to the Commandant, who is not the Appellate Authority. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy and approached the High Court directly with misleading statements.

After hearing Mr. Arjun Acharjee and Ms. Moon Basu for the petitioner, Justice Biswajit Palit carefully examined the records and observed that repeated opportunities were afforded to the petitioner through jail authorities, yet he failed to avail them. The Court held that mere incarceration cannot be a valid ground to justify non-participation in departmental proceedings, especially when notices were duly served. The petitioner also failed to produce any proof of having preferred a statutory appeal.

Placing reliance on several Supreme Court judgments, including Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, Leelavathi N. v. State of Karnataka (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2253, Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2893, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2510, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters. The High Court cannot act as an appellate authority, re-appreciate evidence, or interfere unless there is violation of principles of natural justice or the order is perverse or shockingly disproportionate.

The Court concluded that no violation of natural justice occurred, as adequate opportunities were provided. The petitioner’s claim of having filed an appeal was found to be misleading. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was passed. All pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

Case Title: Sonvir Singh v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.203 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit

Click HERE for full Judgment