ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the respondent No.03 herein, whereby punishment of forfeiture of 10 days earned remission has been imposed upon the him in respect of the prison offence allegedly committed on 06.07.2022 and further questioned their action in not granting leave/parole to him in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989.

2. The petitioner herein is a convicted prisoner, who is languishing in Central Jail, Bilaspur and undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon him by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur vide judgment dated 24.11.2015 for having committed offence under Section 376 of IPC and also under Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner has committed prison offence on 06.07.2022, as he has breached the security inside the prison and got himself involved in fight and also assaulted security personals (i.e. prisoners who were assigned security duties inside the jail) and, therefore, the respondent-jail authorities have imposed punishment of forfeiture of 10 days earned remission on the petitioner and further by order dated 12.08.2022 it has been held that on account of committing aforesaid prison offence, he is not entitled for leave/parole in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989.

3. The aforesaid action of the respondents has been sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition on the ground that it has been done without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and same is violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondents have filed their return, inter-alia, stating that the petitioner was found involved in commission of prison offence and after following due procedure in this regard appropriate punishment for forfeiting 10 days earned remission has been imposed upon him and further on account of committing prison offence he has been held to be not entitled for grant of leave/parole, which is strictly in accordance with law, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that punishment of forfeiture of earned remission imposed upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Jail (respondent No.03) on account of alleged misconduct on his part inside the prison is absolutely unjustified and improper and same is violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as neither any formal enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Jail as contemplated under Rule 734 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 nor the petitioner (prisoner) was afforded an opportunity of hearing. As such, the impugned action on the part of the respondents in imposing punishment of forfeiture of 10 days’ earned remission is liable to be set aside and present petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Learned State counsel supported the impugned action of the respondents and submits that the jail authorities before imposing aforesaid punishment has conducted necessary enquiry, wherein statement of the petitioner has been taken and the Octagon Officer to Jailor has also taken statement of other prisoners also, namely, Raja Babu and Om @ Bhau on 07.07.2022 and after finding the petitioner to be involved in prison offence, the impugned punishment of forfeiture of 10 days’ earned remission has been imposed upon him, which is strictly in accordance with law.

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

8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote following observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of D. Bhuwan Mohan Patnaik