Locked Up But Not Excused: Tripura HC Rejects Riflemans Plea Over Dismissal

In a firm stance on disciplinary accountability, the High Court of Tripura dismissed a writ petition by former Tripura State Rifles (TSR) rifleman Sonvir Singh , upholding his dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence. Justice Biswajit Palit ruled on April 22, 2026, that being in jail does not absolve an employee from participating in departmental proceedings when notices are properly served through jail authorities. The court also flagged the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before rushing to writ jurisdiction.

Echoing media reports, the judgment underscores: mere incarceration cannot be a valid ground to justify non-participation... especially where repeated notices have been duly served.

From Leave to Long Absence: The Rifleman's Downfall

Sonvir Singh , enrolled as Rifleman (GD) No. 08121114 in TSR since 2008, was posted with the 3rd Battalion at Kachuchara, Dhalai district. He took 30 days' commuted leave on medical grounds from December 23, 2014, to January 21, 2015. But he never returned.

During this period, Singh got entangled in a grave criminal case—Shlampur PS Case No. 207/2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 IPC (rioting, murder attempt, etc.)—and another under the Arms Act. Arrested on January 6, 2015, he spent over 10 years in Bulandshahr jail (including remission). His Allahabad High Court appeal failed, but the Supreme Court granted bail via SLP (Crl) No. 1824/2024 on February 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, TSR launched departmental proceedings (DP No. 06/2015) for overstaying leave. Notices flew out on June 12, 24; July 3, 25; and August 5, 2015, plus a December 14, 2015, letter to the jail superintendent. A preliminary inquiry confirmed unauthorized absence from January 22, 2015. The Commandant issued a provisional dismissal on March 4, 2016, and finalized it on August 31, 2016, under Section 12(1)(j) of the TSR Act, 1983, treating absence as Dies-Non and striking him off rolls.

Post-bail, Singh sought rejoining, claiming no proper defense due to custody, but approached the High Court via WP(C) No. 203/2025 without filing a formal departmental appeal.

Petitioner's Defense: Custody Trumped Fair Hearing

Counsel Arjun Acharjee and Moon Basu argued principles of natural justice were breached—Singh couldn't submit a defense or appear before the Inquiry Officer while jailed. They cited Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. (2003) 2 SCC 107, urging writ relief despite alternatives, as it involved fundamental rights and natural justice failures. No appeal disposal was communicated, they claimed.

State's Counter: Notices Served, No Appeal Filed

Additional Government Advocate Karnajit De fired back via counter-affidavit: Multiple notices reached Singh via jail and police, confirmed by reports (e.g., O/C Salempur PS on June 22, 2015). He neither responded, nor sent a representative or lawyer. What Singh called an "appeal" was merely a rejoining application to the Commandant—not the appellate authority (IGP TSR & OPS).

The state stressed exhaustion of remedies under TSR rules; direct writ bypass was untenable. Service records showed 7+ years tenure, but 1.5+ years non-qualifying due to absence.

Court's Razor-Sharp Review: No Wiggle Room for Evasion

Justice Palit meticulously sifted records, noting notices' diligence despite custody. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Leelavathi N. v. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2253) and Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2893), he reaffirmed High Courts' restraint under Article 226— not an appellate forum to reappraise evidence unless natural justice is blatantly violated, no evidence supports findings, or orders shock conscience.

Drawing from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 and P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, the court held judicial review checks process , not merits. Here, proceedings followed TSR Act; Singh's non-response was self-inflicted. No proof of appeal existed—misleading claims noted. Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510) sealed it: fault-based waiver of remedies bars writs.

“Since, the petitioner only took the plea that he could not appear before the Inquiry authority as such he could not take his proper defence, only this ground cannot be a sole consideration for exercising writ jurisdiction. Because the Inquiry Authority as well as the Departmental Authority before imposition of punishment served several notices upon him, but inspite of that no such effective steps were taken by the petitioner.”

Landmark Ruling: Petition Booted, Precedent Set

The writ stands rejected as devoid of merit , no costs. Implications ripple: Public servants can't cite jail time to dodge accountability if authorities bend over backwards with notices. Future cases may hinge on proven service and response efforts, reinforcing exhaust remedies first in service disputes. TSR discipline holds firm.