IMPORTANT POINT
The foundational tenets of principles of natural justice extend their protective ambit to prisoners, entitling them to an opportunity to present their defense before being awarded punishments.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order no. F. W(3594370/CJ/LEGAL/2023/30790 Dated 17-05-2023. passed by the Respondent; and

b. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing punishment ticket no. 22 dated 09.03.2022 issued by Jail Superintendent, CJ-02, Tihar Delhi and Judicial Appraisal Order dated 19.05.2022; and

c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on 1st Spell of Furlough of 03 weeks in FIR No. 356/2012, PS: Prashant Vihar, U/s 364A/392/394/397 IPC& 27 Arms Act; or"

2. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 02, Tihar, New Delhi. He was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 364A/392/394/397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 27 of Arms Act in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 356/2012 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi and by virtue of order on sentence dated 01.07.2016, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months. His appeal against conviction i.e., CRL.A. 834/2016 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.01.2019.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the competent authorities for grant of first spell of furlough for three weeks, however, his application for the same was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 17.05.2023. It is stated that the reason for the rejection of furlough was that he was released on emergency parole on 16.05.2021, at the time of Covid-19, but he was re-arrested during the period of parole in another FIR No. 114/2022, registered under Sections 356/379/411/34 of IPC, P.S. Dwarka South, Delhi. It is argued that the petitioner has already been convicted in the said FIR and vide order dated 25.05.2023, he has been sentenced to period undergone i.e. 11 months by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that the punishment ticket no. 22, dated 09.03.2022, and the appraisal of the punishment by learned Principle and Sessions judge vide order dated 19.05.2023 are both unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and against the principles of law. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has been awarded a major punishment, for the reason that he was re-arrested while being on parole, however, the jail authorities have not followed the process as mandated by Rule 1272 and 1273 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. It is also argued that neither any show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard or filing any reply. Therefore, it is prayed that the punishment ticket no. 22 dated 09.03.2022 be quashed and the petitioner be granted furlough for a period of three weeks.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State argues that the petitioner, while he had been released on on emergency parole on 16.05.2021,wasre-arrested on 02.03.2022 in another case bearing FIR No. 114/2022, P.S. Dwaka South, Delhi, under Sections 356/379/411/34. It is stated that the petitioner has also been convicted by the learned Trial Court in the said case vide judgment dated 25.05.2023. It is also argued that since the petitioner had committed another offence while being on emergency parole and had been re-arrested, he was issued a punishment ticket by the jail authorities on 09.03.2022 for violation of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which had then received judicial appraisal vide order dated 07.07.2022. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is also involved in several other criminal cases. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is prayed that present writ petition be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard arguments addr