JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Petitioner herein is a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 450 of IPC in Central Jail, Bilaspur. He made an application for grant of parole on leave in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 (in short 'Rules of 1989') and eventually, he was admitted to the privilege of leave by order dated 20/07/2016 (Annexure R/1) passed by Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Raipur. Subsequently, petitioner was released on 05/07/2016 and he was required to report back on 18/07/2016, but he did not return back on the due date which led to issuance of warrant of arrest against him by the competent authority and he was ultimately arrested after an overstay of 325 days and he was admitted to jail on 08/06/2017. Thereafter, as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989, petitioner's statement was recorded on 08/06/2017 (Annexure R/5) by the Octogonal Officer, Central Jail, Bilaspur and he recommended petitioner's case to be presented before the Jail Superintendent, who vide order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6), imposed penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of petitioner's earned remission under Rule 12(d) of the Rules of 1989, which has been called in question by way of this writ petition on the ground that such a forfeiture of petitioner's earned remission, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) has been passed in defiance of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 as major penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner, that too, without holding an enquiry and without assigning sufficient reason, as such, the said penalty imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 12/6/2017 is liable to be set aside.

3. Return has been filed by the respondents/State justifying the action of the respondents and stating that after considering all the aspects of the matter and after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to the petitioner, order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that vide order dated 12/06/2017, major penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 without holding any and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning good and sufficient reason as to why other minor penalty could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner instead of the said major penalty, which is in violation of principles of natural justice, as such, the impugned order passed by the Jail Superintendent deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that after due enquiry, penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner, as such, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leaves Rules, 1989, which provides as under :-

“12. Penalty for overstay. - If the prisoner returns to the jail of his own accord after the date fixed for his return he shall be admitted to the jail and the prisoner's return and the reason for the delay shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, for his orders where the prisoner should be prosecuted. If it is not considered to prosecute, the Superintendent should hold an enquiry and may for good and sufficient reasons, award one