S.D. Bajaj, J.
1. While undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak, in pursuance of judgment dated April 21, 1982, of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonepat detenu petitioner Tara Chand was assigned the duty of convict watchman by the Jail Authorities, August 28, 1986. Convict Suresh
Kumar son of Kirori Mal was under supervision in the outside gang. Aforesaid convict, however, escaped from his custody on that very day itself.
Convict watchman Tara Chand was thus accused of a jail offence and punishment of reduction in rank was awarded to him for it on the following
day viz., August 29, 1986.
2. In Criminal Writ No. 1007 of 1989, detenupetitioner Tara Chand has challenged the jail punishment awarded to him on the grounds that the
petitioner was neither heard himself nor afforded an opportunity to crossexamine Jaipal and Dharampal, who were both examined by the Jail
Authorities as witnesses against him and that the alleged inquiry against him was conducted by the officiating Superintendent Jail.
3. In para No. 5 of the reply, it was asserted by the respondents ""that the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. The
petitioner committed Jail offence under para 608(8) of Punjab Jail Manual and Section 45(8) of Prison Act, 1894. The contents of para 608(8) of
Punjab Jail Manual and Section 45(8) of Prison Act, 1894 are reproduced below :
Willful idleness or negligence at work by any prisoner sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
The petitioner was punished for this offence under the provisions contained in para 630(2)(c) of Punjab Jail Manual. The contents of para 630(2)
(c) of Punjab Jail Manual are reproduced below :
Forfeiture of class, grade or prison privileges for a period exceeding three months"". Hence the punishment was awarded to the petitioner in
accordance with the rules and provisions of Punjab Jail Manual and Prison Act, 1894.
4. I have heard Mrs. Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Azad Singh, Advocate for the respondents and have carefully gone
through the material on record.
5. During the course of inquiry statements Annexure R2 of Warder Jaipal and Annexure R4 of Wardar Dharam Pal were recorded besides the
deposition of delinquent CNW Tara Chand himself as Annexure R3. It is not stated either in Annexure R2 or in Annexure R4 that the delinquent
was allowed any opportunity to crossexamine them. Delinquent C.N.W. Tara Chand was also not apprised of the charge against him nor was his
explanation obtained in respect of it.
6. In similar circumstances, it was held this Court in Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1984(1) CLR 49 :
Held, that there is ab solutely no indication on the record that any statements of the two officials, namely, Shri Balbir Singh Batra, Assistant
Superintendent, and Shri B.L. Sethi, Parmacist were recorded by some officer in the presence of the petitioner, or that the petitioner had refused
to crossexamine these witnesses.
The word `determine'' in Section 46 involves a judicial approach to the matter which necessarily implies an objective application of mind by the
Superintendent of the Jail to the material before him.
Inquiries of this nature being quasiJudicial, must conform to the principles of natural justice which postulate a right to the delinquent to be heard and
the recording of the relevant witnesses in the presence of the delinquent prisoner.
In this view of the matter, the writ succeeds and is allowed. Jail punishment awarded to the detenupetitioner CNW Tara Chand on August 29,
1986, is quashed.
Writ allowed.
