01Facts
The petitioner, a rifleman in the Tripura State Rifles, was charged departmentally with overstaying his leave from 21 January 2015 without authority.
pp. 2–4He was then in custody in connection with criminal cases in Uttar Pradesh.
pp. 2–4The departmental inquiry proceeded ex parte after notices were served on him; the inquiry officer found the charge proved, and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service in 2016.
pp. 2–4In 2022, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the criminal cases.
pp. 4–5His criminal appeal remained pending, but the Supreme Court granted him bail in February 2025.
pp. 4–5After an earlier writ petition challenging his dismissal was dismissed for failure to pursue the departmental appeal, the petitioner sought reinstatement, arguing that his conviction had been set aside.
pp. 5–6The Inspector General rejected that request on 10 July 2026 because the conviction remained in force and the petitioner had only been released on bail.
pp. 5–6He challenged that rejection in this writ petition.
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s release on bail pending his criminal appeal meant that his conviction had been set aside, entitling him to reinstatement.
pp. 5–7ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s detention prevented the respondents from treating his absence from duty as unauthorised and relying on the departmental inquiry to refuse reinstatement.
pp. 6–703Law Applied
The Court considered the disciplinary inquiry conducted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, read with Rule 40 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control & Service Conditions, etc.) Rules.
p. 2It applied the principle that release on bail pending a criminal appeal does not set aside the conviction; unless the conviction is set aside, the convicted person cannot claim that the conviction no longer stands.
p. 7The Court also considered the respondents’ authority to rely on the departmental finding that the petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent from duty.
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 302Section 307Section 323Section 504
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25
04Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s order granted the petitioner bail while his criminal appeal was pending; it did not overturn his conviction.
p. 7The conviction therefore remained operative, and the petitioner could not rely on his release from custody as a basis for claiming reinstatement.
p. 7Further, the departmental inquiry had found that he was unauthorisedly absent from 21 January 2015 until his dismissal in 2016.
pp. 6–7The Court accordingly found that the respondents were entitled to refuse reinstatement, notwithstanding the petitioner’s contention that his imprisonment had prevented him from defending the inquiry.
pp. 6–705Holding
The Court held that the petitioner’s conviction remained in force despite his release on bail and that the departmental finding of unauthorised absence supported the refusal to reinstate him.
p. 7Finding no merit in the writ petition, it dismissed the petition without costs and disposed of any pending applications.
p. 7Original Court PDF
No. 08121114 Rfn (GD) Sonvir SinghvsThe State of Tripura and 4 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
