R.L Anand, J.:— Heard.
2. Raj Kumar has filed the present petition for the quashment of punishment dated 9.2.1994, Annexure P. 1 stating that it has been passed illegally, arbitrarily and against the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. The grouse of the petitioner is that the punishment awarded by the Jail Superintendent was never judicially appraised by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak and that the principle of natural justice has been violated by the learned Sessions Judge when the petitioner was not heard. The stand of the petitioner has been disputed by the State.
3. The attention of this Court has been invited to the proceedings dated 9.2.1994 and 17.3.1994 Vide entry dated 9.2.94, the Jail Superintendent has stated that the entry was made in the register No. 5 and letter was written to District Judge, Rohtak for judicial appraisal. The orders dated 17.3.94 reads as follows:—
“Judicially appraised and order passed that two days remission be deducted vide S.J Rohtak No. 1387 dated 15.3.1994”
4. The above orders would show that the principles of natural justice have been violated and the petitioner was not heard before the judicial appraisal. In 1994 (2) RCR 277, Karambir v. State of Haryana, it was held that when a petitioner has been awarded jail punishment and his case has been seen by the Sessions Judge for judicial appraisal who granted the appraisal, but neither the petitioner was summoned by the Sessions Judge nor was given an opportunity of being heard as such punishment awarded by the Jail Authorities is illegal and was quashed in the cited judgment. It was further held that if the judicial appraisal has been done in the mechanical manner by the learned Sessions Judge, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable to the facts in hand.
5. In these circumstances, the orders dated 9.2.1994 and 17.3.1994 are hereby quashed and these orders will be considered as non-existent in the eyes of law.
Page: 698Petition allowed.