No. 08121114 Rfn (GD) Sonvir Singh vs The State of Tripura and 4 Ors.
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010019042026
Page 1 of 7
2026:THC:1475
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.761 of 2026
No.08121114 Rfn (GD) Sonvir Singh, S/o Shri Indrapal Singh, Vill- Rampur
Sywali, P.O. Rampur Sywali, P.S. Shlampur, Dist- Bulandshahar, State- Uttar
Pradesh, PIN-203150
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura represented by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Home Department, New Capital Complex, P.O.
Kunjaban, Agartala, Dist- West Tripura
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP), Government of Tripura,
Agartala, West Tripura
3. The Inspector General of Police (TSR & OPS), Government of Tripura,
Agartala, West Tripura
rd
4. The Commandant, 3 Bn TSR, Kachuchara, Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura
rd
5. The Deputy Commandant, 3 Bn TSR, Kachuchara, Ambassa, Dhalai
Tripura
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate,
Ms. Arshita Dey, Advocate,
Ms. Ankita De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date of hearing : 13.10.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 11.11.2026
Whether Fit for Reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order
dt.10.07.2026 passed by the Inspector General of Police (TSR & OPS) [third
respondent] rejecting the appeal petition filed by the petitioner challenging the
rd
order dt.31.08.2026 of the Commandant, 3 Bn TSR [respondent No.4].
TRHC010019042026
Page 2 of 7
2026:THC:1475
Background Facts:
2. The petitioner was a rifleman in the service of the respondents,
and had been lastly posted at Kachuchara in Dhalai District, Tripura.
3. He had availed a holiday from 23.12.2014 to 21.01.2015, but in
the meantime he got involved Crime No.207/2014 Salempur PS under
Sections 147, 149, 302, 307 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also
Crime No.39/15 of Salempur PS under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. He had been arrested in Crime No.207/2014.
5. Articles of charge were framed on 23.05.2015 against the
petitioner by the respondents alleging that on expiry of the leave granted to
him on 21.01.2015, he did not resume his duty and had voluntarily overstayed
from leave with effect from 21.01.2015 without any valid authority, and that
his act was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the service.
6. On 14.12.2015, a letter was addressed by the Assistant
rd
Commandant of the 3 Battalion of the Tripura State Rifles to the
Superintendent of Jail, Bulandshahar District, State of Uttar Pradesh (where
the petitioner had been lodged from 07.01.2015 in connection with Case
No.207/2014) stating that the petitioner had overstayed his leave from
21.01.2015 without permission of the competent authority, which was a gross
misconduct by members of a disciplined force like the Tripura State Rifles,
and that a departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
read with Rule 40 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control & Service
Conditions, etc.) Rules had been initiated against him. The Superintendent of
the said Jail was requested to serve upon the petitioner the charge memo and
TRHC010019042026
Page 3 of 7
2026:THC:1475
to direct him to submit his defence statement along with the name of his
defence assistant.
7. The petitioner could not submit the defence statement within the
stipulated period.
8. An Inquiry Authority and a Presenting Officer were appointed on
11.06.2015 to present the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority in
support of the articles of charge framed against the petitioner.
9. During the course of the inquiry, five notices were issued to the
petitioner on different occasions to defend his case, but he did not participate
in the inquiry, and also did not submit any written statement of his defence
before the inquiry officer, though he received the notices after putting his
signature on the duplicate copy notices. So the inquiry was conducted ex
parte .
10. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the inquiry officer
gave his report on 10.02.2016 finding that the articles of charge framed
against the petitioner stood established.
11. On 04.03.2016 the disciplinary authority [fourth respondent]
issued show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause why punishment of
dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him within 15 days.
12. This proceeding of the fourth respondent was sent by a letter
dt.21.04.2016 to the Superintendent of Jail, Bulandshahar District, Uttar
Pradesh where the petitioner was lodged for service on the petitioner.
13. This proceeding dt.04.03.2016 was also received by the petitioner
through the Jail authority of Bulandshahar District Jail, but no representation
was made by the petitioner against the proposed punishment.
TRHC010019042026
Page 4 of 7
2026:THC:1475
14. The fourth respondent then got published the proceeding
dt.04.03.2016 in the newspapers on 12.05.2016 through the Directorate of
Information & Cultural Affairs, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
15. The petitioner however did not respond to the same though it was
published in the newspaper.
16. Therefore the fourth respondent on 31.08.2016 passed an order
imposing major penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ on the petitioner with
immediate effect treating his absence with effect from 21.01.2015 to
30.08.2016 as ‘Dies-Non’.
17. In the meantime, the petitioner was convicted by the ASJ Court
No.14/Spl. Judge: EC Act, District Bulandshahar on 31.05.2022 in Crime
No.207/2014 (ST No.234/2015) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
fine of Rs.35,000/-, IDF 9 months and also in Crime No.39/2015 (ST
No.257/2015) and sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, IDF 1 month.
18. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.6655/2022 before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging his conviction and sought
suspension of sentence imposed on him.
19. On 28.08.2024, the High Court rejected the said application.
20. The petitioner then filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.18264/2024 before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the
High Court rejecting his application for suspension of sentence.
21. After taking note of the fact that the petitioner had been
incarcerated in jail for more than ten years, and also the fact that co-accused
had already been granted bail, the Supreme Court allowed the SLP on
TRHC010019042026
Page 5 of 7
2026:THC:1475
06.02.2025 and directed the petitioner to be released on bail in connection
with the criminal cases Nos.207/2014, 38/2015 and 39/2015 registered with
PS Salempur, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court.
22. Petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No.203/2025 before this Court
for quashing of the punishment order dt.31.08.2016, and the provisional
punishment order dt.04.03.2016 raising a plea that he was in prison and
therefore could not properly defend his case.
23. The learned Single Judge however dismissed the Writ Petition on
22.04.2026 stating that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal under the Rules
challenging the order of the disciplinary authority, and had directly come to
the High Court seeking relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, and
that no case was made out for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution
of India in his favour.
24. After the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner filed an
rd
appeal before the Commandant of the 3 Bn seeking reinstatement into
service alleging that his conviction by the Trial Court had been set aside by
the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to supra on 06.02.2025.
According to him, the matter was still sub judice before the
Allahabad High Court, and his Criminal Appeal was not finally decided and
till it is finally decided, he cannot be treated as an offender.
Consequently he prayed that his dismissal from service ordered
by the fourth respondent, has to be set aside pending final adjudication of his
appeal.
TRHC010019042026
Page 6 of 7
2026:THC:1475
25. This request was rejected by the Appellate Authority [third
respondent] on 10.07.2026 holding that the petitioner was still a convict in a
criminal case, and had only been released on bail pending hearing of the
Criminal Appeal, and so his request for reinstatement in the earlier post cannot
be accepted.
26. Assailing the same, the instant Writ Petition has been filed.
Consideration by the Court:
27. Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that this order
dt.10.07.2026 passed by the third respondent is required to be set aside on the
ground that the petitioner could not appear before the inquiry officer in the
disciplinary inquiry as he was detained in prison at Salempur District Jail,
Uttar Pradesh and consequently cannot be treated as having been
unauthorisedly absent from duty by overstaying leave with effect from
22.01.2015.
28. Admittedly the petitioner had been convicted by the Trial Court
i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14/Special Judge: EC Act of
District Bulandshahar in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 31.05.2022 and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.35,000/- for offences
under Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149, 323/149 IPC in Crime No.207/2014
(ST No.234/2015).
29. He was also sentenced to suffer two years’ rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- by the same Court in Crime No.39/2015
(ST No.257/2015) for committing offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
30. The said conviction is subject matter of the Criminal Appeal
No.6655/2022 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
TRHC010019042026
Page 7 of 7
2026:THC:1475
31. Merely because he was directed to be released on bail by the
Supreme Court in its order dt.06.02.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.18264/2024, the petitioner cannot contend that his conviction
has been set aside.
32. As long as the conviction in the criminal case stands, the
respondents are within their rights in refusing to reinstate the petitioner into
service, more particularly when the disciplinary inquiry held against the
petitioner proved that he was unauthorisedly absent from 21.01.2015 till he
was dismissed from service on 31.08.2016.
33. I therefore do not find any merit in the instant Writ Petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.11.11 14:15:37 +05'30'