Mere Custody No Excuse To Avoid Participation In Departmental Proceedings When Notices Are Duly Served: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court held that mere incarceration cannot be a valid ground to justify non-participation in departmental proceedings, especially where repeated notices have been duly served. Further the Court observed that the petitioner failed to respond or appoint any representative despite being given adequate opportunities through jail authorities. Justice Biswajit Palit remarked that: “In the Departmental Proceeding on so many occasions notices were issued upon him through the authority of the jail, but inspite of that he did not take any step nor did he engage any counsel or any other authorized agent to defend his case.”Background:The petitioner, Sonvir Singh, was appointed as a Rifleman in the Tripura State Rifles and had rendered over six years of service. He proceeded on sanctioned leave from 23 December 2014 to 21 January 2015 but failed to resume duty thereafter. During this period, he became involved in serious criminal cases in Uttar Pradesh and was subsequently arrested, remaining in judicial custody for several years. Due to his prolonged absence, departmental proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence. Despite multiple notices being served through jail authorities, the petitioner neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor submitted any defence. Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service in August 2016. The petitioner challenged the dismissal primarily on the ground that he was in custody during the departmental proceedings and, therefore, could not effectively defend himself. He argued that this amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. He also claimed to have preferred an appeal against the dismissal order, which allegedly remained undecided. In response, the State contended that the petitioner remained absent from duty without authorization for a prolonged period and was duly afforded adequate opportunities to participate in the departmental proceedings through repeated notices served via jail authorities. Despite this, he neither availed those opportunities nor appointed any representative to defend his case. It was further asserted that the petitioner failed to file any statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority and instead directly approached the High Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction.Rejecting the petitioner's contention, the Court remarked that the principles of natural justice were not violated as It held that adequate opportunities had been granted and the petitioner himself failed to utilize them.Further the Court noted that the petitioner made a misleading claim about filing an appeal before the departmental appellate authority as no proof of such an appeal was placed on record.The Court observed that the petitioners did not prefer any appeal to the statutory authority challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority and directly came to this Court for seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaThus, the Court rejected the petition and held that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Case Name: Somvir Singh V/s The State of TripuraCase No.: W.P. ( C) No. 203 of 2025Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 For the petitioner: Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Adv, Ms. Moon Basu, Adv.For the respondent: Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Custody No Excuse To Avoid Participation In Departmental Proceedings When Notices Are Duly Served: Tripura High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mere Custody No Excuse To Avoid Participation In Departmental Proceedings When Notices Are Duly Served: Tripura High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers