Failed To Show That Natural Justice Was Violated: Tripura High Court Upholds Ex-TSR Rifle Man’s Dismissal Order

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking reinstatement and quashing of the punishment order passed against him.

The Single Bench of Justice Biswajit Palit held, “Furthermore, the petitioner in course of hearing also has failed to satisfy the Court by showing any cogent materials on record that principles of natural justice has been violated against him in deciding the Departmental Proceeding. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ petition.”

Advocate Arjun Acharjee represented the Petitioner while Addl. Govt. Advocate Karnajit De represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner had joined as a Rifleman under TSR and was posted at Kachucherra, Dhalai District. He took a holiday, but in the meantime, he was involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 504 of the IPC and also in another criminal Case registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959. He thus could not join his duty. The petitioner had reasoned that he could not submit his written statement of defence, nor could he appear before the Inquiry Authority to contest the departmental proceeding, as he was arrested and was languishing in Salempur District Jail. In the meantime, the Commandant, 3rd Bnt, TSR started a preliminary inquiry against him as he was unauthorizedly absent from his duty. After sending notices, articles of charges were framed against him.

The Departmental Authority, i.e. the Commandant, 3rd Bn TSR, based on Inquiry report passed one provisional dismissal order and thereafter passed the final order imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service as per Section 12(1) of the TSR Act, 1983 The petitioner approached the High Court seeking setting aside the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that during the entire Departmental Proceeding the petitioner was in custody in some other case and as such he could not appear before the authority to take his proper defence.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner was an employee of TSR, Tripura. He rendered a considerable period of service; thereafter, he proceeded on leave, but failed to resume his duty within time and remained absent unauthorizedly for a long period. In the meantime, it was reported that he was involved in a criminal case and was languishing in jail in U.P.

The Bench further noticed that in the Departmental Proceeding, notices were issued to him on many occasions through the authority of the jail, but he did not take any steps, nor did he engage any counsel or any other authorized agent to defend his case.

The Bench stated, “Thus, it appears that the petitioner gave misleading statement before this Court. 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.”

The Bench also took note of the fact that the petitioners did not prefer any appeal to the statutory authority challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority and directly came to the High Court for seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Sonvir Singh v. The State of Tripura (Case No.: W.P.(C)No.203 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Arjun Acharjee, Moon Basu

Respondent: Addl. Govt. Advocate Karnajit De

Click here to read/download Order