For any arrangment of numbers 1 to 10 in a circle, there will always exist a pair of 3 adjacent numbers in the circle that sum up to 17 or more I set out to solve the following question using the pigeonhole principle

Regardless of how one arranges numbers $1$ to $10$ in a circle, there will always exist a pair of three adjacent numbers in the circle that sum up to $17$ or more.

My outline
[1] There are $10$ triplets consisting of adjacent numbers in the circle, and since each number appears thrice, the total sum of these adjacent triplets for all permutations of the number in the circle, is $3\cdot 55=165$.
[2] If we consider that all the adjacent triplets sum to 16 , and since there are $10$ such triplets, the sum accordingly would be $160$, but we just said the invariant sum is $165$ hence there would have to be a triplet with sum of $17$ or more.
My query
Could someone polish this into a mathematical proof and also clarify if I did make use of the pigeonhole principle.   

Yes, you used the Pigeonhole Principle. As a very mild correction, you should say that of all sums of three consecutives are $\le 16$, then the sum is $\le 160$. 
The proof (with the small correction) is already fully mathematical. Conceivably you might want to explain the $55$ further. It is clear to you and to most users of this site why $55$, but imagine the reader to be easily puzzled. 
The part about "all the permutations" is vague, and technically incorrect. You are finding the sum of a consecutive triple, and summing all these sums. Permutations have nothing to do with it, we are talking about a particular fixed arrangement of the numbers. 
Remark: We could use a lot of symbols. Starting at a particular place, and going counterclockwise, let our numbers be $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_{10}$. For any $i$, where $1\le i\le 10$, let $S_i=a_i+a_{i+1}+a_{i+2}$, where we use the convention that $a_{10+1}=a_1$, $a_{10+2}=a_2$, and $a_{9+2}=a_1$.  
Then $S_1+S_1+\cdots+S_{10}=165$, since each of $1$ to $10$ appears in $3$ of the $S_i$, and $1+2+\cdots+10=55$. 
But if all the $S_i$ are $\le 16$, then $\sum_{i=1}^{10}S_i\le 160$. This contradicts the fact that $\sum_{i=1}^{10}S_i=165$.
I prefer your proof, mildly modified.   
