Compliance with the procedure for awarding punishments under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, including the requirement of giving notice to the prisoner and holding a post facto hearing, is essential for imposing a major punishment.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].

1. By way of this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails a punishment order, dated 08.09.2021, issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail-14, Mandoli, Delhi, whereby the punishment of stoppage of mulaqaat for the period of one month was imposed upon the petitioner.

2. Notice was issued in this petition on 03.02.2022, and the respondent - State was directed to file a Status Report. The Status Report has not been filed in terms of the said order. However, it is handed over in Court today by Mr. Karan Dhalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. avi Singh, learned additional Standing Counsel for the State, and a copy has also been handed over to Mr. akshay Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties on both sides.

3. alongwith the Status Report, a copy of the Judicial appraisal order, dated 18.12.2021, under Section 46 of the Delhi Prisons act, 2000 ['DP act'] read with Rule 47 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 1988, has also been placed on record, wherein the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was reduced to stoppage of mulaqaat for 15 days. Mr. Bhandari states that the Judicial appraisal order was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, which is why it does not find mention in the writ petition.

4. although the period of punishment has already been undergone by the petitioner, Mr. Bhandari submits that the punishment was imposed contrary to the procedure contemplated in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 ['the Rules'] and seeks remand to the jail authorities for reconsideration of the matter.

5. By an order dated 06.06.2018, the petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of FIR No. 188/2017 registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli.

6. The petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order [CRL.a. 1089/2018] is pending before this Court. In the said appeal, the petitioner made an application for interim bail [CRL.M.(Bail) 7624/2020] on the ground that he had to undergo surgery for varicose veins. By an order dated 17.11.2020, the Division Bench granted interim bail to the petitioner for a period of four weeks. He was released on 28.11.2020 and was required to surrender on 25.12.2020. However, the Status Report records that the petitioner did not surrender on time and was re-arrested on 03.09.2021, following which he was produced before the Duty Magistrate.

7. In these circumstances, a Convict History Ticket ['the Ticket'], dated 04.09.2021, was submitted by the assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail-14, Mandoli which reads as follows:-

'On 04.09.2021, It has been reported that convict PRaVEEN RaNa @ DILLU S/o SaTBIR RaNa was granted Interim Bail for a period of 4 weeks granted by the Hon'ble DHC vide order dated: 17.11.2020. The convict was released on 28.11.2020. The date of surrender was fixed for 25.12.2020. But he didn't surrender on time. On 03.09.2021 the said convict was rearrested in same case by Delhi Police and produced before Hon'ble court Ms. Upasan Satija, Duty MM(Mahlla)-02,North District, Rohini Courts Delhi.

Hence, in view of above, the convict PRaVEEN RaNa @ DILLU S/O SaTBIR RaNa has violated terms & condition mentioned in the Interim Bail and the jail rules and he may be punished as per provisions of Delhi Jail Manual, 2018'

8. The punishment order, dated 08.09.2021, was thereafter passed by the Jail Superintendent. The order reads as follows:-

'Heard. He has no reasonable excuse for not surrendering. He has been re arrested in the same case. For the late surrender one months mulakat stop subject to approval by the Hon'ble Court.

9. The contention of Mr. Bhandari is that the aforesaid order was passed without complying with the provisions of the Rules, with respect to award of punishme