RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. R.S. PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The petitioner complains against his removal from chakar mushakat because he was found a person not fit to kept on such mushakat. Be it stated that the performance of duty on chakar mushakat entitles him to remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per day and that as a result of his removal, he has been deprived of this monetary benefit. It is not in dispute that there is no contemporaneous record on the basis of which the finding regarding the unfitness of the petitioner had been arrived at by the jail authorities. There is also no material to show that even a semblance of opportunity was given to the petitioner before finding him unfit. There is no judicial appraisal with regard to the unfitness of tile petitioner, that is to say, the learned Sessions Judge concerned does not appear to have been apprised of the step before or after the decision with regard to the removal of the petitioner from chakar mushakat was taken.

(2.) HAVING regard to tile law declared by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra (ii) v. Delhi Administration' such an action could not have been taken unless certain safeguards were observed. The Supreme Court in that decision has declared the law in the following terms: "No solitary or punitive cell, no hard labour or dietary change as painful additive, no other punishment or denial of privileges and amenities, no transfer to other prisons with penal consequences, shall be imposed without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge and where such intimation, on account of emergency, is difficult, such information shall be given within two days of the action! (underlining supplied for emphasis) Even if chakar mushakat duty is taken as a privilege, the petitioner could not have been deprived of this privilege without an opportunity and without judicial appraisal of the above extracted portion of the Supreme Court judgment.