JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Petitioner herein is a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 450 of IPC in Central Jail, Bilaspur. He made an application for grant of parole on leave in accordance with Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 (in short 'Rules of 1989') and eventually, he was admitted to the privilege of leave by order dated 20/07/2016 (Annexure R/1) passed by Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Raipur. Subsequently, petitioner was released on 05/07/2016 and he was required to report back on 18/07/2016, but he did not return back on the due date which led to issuance of warrant of arrest against him by the competent authority and he was ultimately arrested after an overstay of 325 days and he was admitted to jail on 08/06/2017. Thereafter, as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989, petitioner's statement was recorded on 08/06/2017 (Annexure R/5) by the Octogonal Officer, Central Jail, Bilaspur and he recommended petitioner's case to be presented before the Jail Superintendent, who vide order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6), imposed penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of petitioner's earned remission under Rule 12(d) of the Rules of 1989, which has been called in question by way of this writ petition on the ground that such a forfeiture of petitioner's earned remission, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) has been passed in defiance of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 as major penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner, that too, without holding an enquiry and without assigning sufficient reason, as such, the said penalty imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 12/6/2017 is liable to be set aside. 3. Return has been filed by the respondents/State justifying the action of the respondents and stating that after considering all the aspects of the matter and after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to the petitioner, order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law. 4. Mr. 3. Return has been filed by the respondents/State justifying the action of the respondents and stating that after considering all the aspects of the matter and after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to the petitioner, order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that vide order dated 12/06/2017, major penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 without holding any and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning good and sufficient reason as to why other minor penalty could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner instead of the said major penalty, which is in violation of principles of natural justice, as such, the impugned order passed by the Jail Superintendent deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that after due enquiry, penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission has been imposed upon the petitioner, as such, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Leaves Rules, 1989, which provides as under :- “12. Penalty for overstay. - If the prisoner returns to the jail of his own accord after the date fixed for his return he shall be admitted to the jail and the prisoner's return and the reason for the delay shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, for his orders where the prisoner should be prosecuted. If it is not considered to prosecute, the Superintendent should hold an enquiry and may for good and sufficient reasons, award one of the following punishments :- (a) Formal Warning. (b) Forfeiture for a period not exceeding 3 months privileges of interview, receiving and sending letters. (c) Degradation from higher to lower grade. (d) Forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day's overstayal on leave which shall not exceed total period of his sentence inclusive of unexpired period of sentence.” 8. (b) Forfeiture for a period not exceeding 3 months privileges of interview, receiving and sending letters. (c) Degradation from higher to lower grade. (d) Forfeiture of 5 days remission for each day's overstayal on leave which shall not exceed total period of his sentence inclusive of unexpired period of sentence.” 8. A careful perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 would show that in case a prisoner overstays and returns to the jail on his own, he shall be admitted to the jail and the reason for his delay shall be reported to the District Magistrate for his orders as to where the prisoner should be prosecuted and if it is not considered to prosecute, the Jail Superintendent shall hold an enquiry and after recording good and sufficient reasons, may award one of the aforesaid four penalties enumerated under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. As such, holding an enquiry by the Superintendent of Jail is sine qua non for inflicting any of the penalties (a) to (d) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989 and needless to say, the enquiry must be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Jail has to record good and sufficient reason for awarding one of the four penalties enumerated in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. Rule 12(a) to (c) are minor penalties whereas Rule 12(d) is a major penalty. 9. The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the matter of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494 has clearly held that prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberties have been constitutionally curtailed. 10. The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the issue of affording opportunity of hearing being given to the prisoner while forfeiting his earned remission in the matter of Anand Rao (supra) and followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra (supra) and in paragraph 5 of the judgment, it has clearly been held that the prisoner is entitled to opportunity to explain his conduct and the material appearing against him in the enquiry before he is found guilty of a prison offence. The Division Bench speaking through G.P. Singh, C.J. pertinently observed as under :- “5. The Division Bench speaking through G.P. Singh, C.J. pertinently observed as under :- “5. It is now well settled that there exists no iron curtain between the prisoners and the Constitution and that a prisoner is not denuded of his fundamental rights except to the extent lawful incarceration by its own compulsion has the effect of withdrawing or limiting these rights. So even a prisoner is entitled to the right guaranteed under Art. 21 that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and the law establishing the procedure must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675 at pp. 1793, 1798)). Penalty of forfeiture of remission earned by a prisoner affects his right of personal liberty because that would result in continuing his incarceration for a longer time and would deprive him of the right of early release on the basis of remission. Procedure for imposition of the penalty of forfeiture must, therefore, meet the requirements of Art. 21 in that it must be just and fair and not arbitrary and oppressive. It is in this background that the procedure prescribed by R. 734 must be interpreted. It must be taken to be implicit that the enquiry contemplated by the rule, subject to the requirements of prison security and discipline, must be consistent with the principles of natural justice and the prisoner concerned must be given opportunity to explain his conduct and the material appearing against him in the enquiry before he is found guilty of a prison offence. It will appear from the facts stated earlier that the petitioner at no stage was asked to explain his conduct or the material appearing against him in the enquiry. He was not heard at all before imposition of penalty. This lends a serious infirmity to the impugned order.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Anand Rao (supra), it is quite vivid that when petitioner did not return back after availing the privilege of parole on 18/07/2016, a warrant of arrest was issued against him and ultimately, he was arrested and taken to jail on 08/06/2017. Thereafter, his statement was recorded on the same day i.e. on 08/06/2017 (Annexure R/5) and the warrant section of Central Jail, Bilaspur recommended that appropriate action be taken against the petitioner as per rules and pursuant thereof, his case was placed for consideration before the Jail Superintendent, who vide impugned order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) inflicted penalty of forfeiture of 1625 days of earned remission upon the petitioner under Rule 12(d) of the Rules of 1989. A careful perusal of the return filed on behalf of the respondents/State would show that only a formal statement of the appellant was recorded on 08/06/2017 before placing his matter before the Jail Superintendent who in turn inflicted major penalty under Rule 12(d) of the Rules of 1989 upon the petitioner. 12. As such, from enquiry proceeding said to have been conducted by the jail authorities, it is apparent that - (i) except for recording the statement of the petitioner, no other kind of enquiry has been conducted and no copy of charge-sheet along with documents was served to the petitioner. (ii) no such opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner, particularly, no enquiry with regard to the cause given by the petitioner for his overstay, that is, his father was ill and he was getting him treated, has been conducted. (iii) no good and sufficient reason has been recorded by the Jail Superintendent for awarding maximum penalty to the petitioner under Rule 12(d) of the Rules of 1989 and moreover, no such finding as to why minimum penalties under Rule 12(a) to (c) of the Rules of 1989 would not be adequate for the petitioner has been recorded and the impugned order has been passed without keeping in mind the sympathetic approach to be adopted by the jail authorities while awarding hard punishment to the prisoners as highlighted by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 1739 which states as under :- “39. The aforesaid seems to us a more rational way to deal with prison vices rather than awarding hard punishment to them. We may not be, however, understood to say that the jail authorities need not take action against the prisoners indulging in vices; but in the situation in which they are placed, a sympathetic approach is also required.” 13. The aforesaid seems to us a more rational way to deal with prison vices rather than awarding hard punishment to them. We may not be, however, understood to say that the jail authorities need not take action against the prisoners indulging in vices; but in the situation in which they are placed, a sympathetic approach is also required.” 13. Thus, forfeiture of 1625 days of petitioner's earned remission, without conducting an enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is violative of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, order dated 12/06/2017 (Annexure R/6) passed by the Jail Superintendent forfeiting 1625 days of petitioner's earned remission is hereby quashed. 14. The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the jail authorities to proceed strictly in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. 15. We hope and trust that the jail authorities will keep in mind the above-mentioned binding observation of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Shri Rama Murthy (supra) while awarding punishment to the prisoners.