S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to quashment of jail punishment awarded to the petitioners-convicts vide order of Superintendent Central Jail, Ludhiana on 12-11-1986, hereby on report of Deputy Superintendent Factory dated 10-11-1486 Davinder Paul Singh petitioner was awarded the following punishment :- i) out or eight days in earned remission. ii) The said convict was to be kept in Block No.- 7 under para 575 of Punjab Jail Manual to watch his conduct.
(2.) THE other petitioners, namely, Ranjit Singh, Mangal Singh, Joginder Singh and Lakhbir Singh were awarded jail punishment with regard to the same incident, which took place on 10-11-1986 at about 4-30 p.m. after closing the factory and handing over the convict to Head Warder Chakar, the Deputy Superintendent Factory was having a round of the factory. On the same evening at about 4.35 p.m. on receipt of information that some convicts were beating another convict Malkiat Singh, the Deputy Superintendent Factory along with Kirpa Ram came out of the factory, and saw Devinder Paul Singh, Mangal Singh, Joginder Singh and Lakhbir Singh present there. Davinder Paul Singh was abusing and beating Malkiat Singh who was bleeding due to injuries on his head. Head Warder Kirpa Ram tried to intervene the aforesaid prisoners from fighting with each other. At that time Lakhbir Singh attacked Kirpa Ram, Head Warder while others abused him. They were brought under control by using minimum force and were sent to the cell till further orders. The said convicts were not properly doing their (labour) work in the factory, in spite of the advice given to them. Besides reference is also made in the return concerning other jail punishments awarded to Ranjit Singh petitioner, as also concerning the conduct of Mangal Singh for committing an offence under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. while he was released on parole. The main grievance of the petitioners is that proper procedure for holding enquiry against them was not followed. Neither the statements of the convicts, or. persons concerned were recorded, nor any show cause notice was given to the petitioners. It was further pleaded that neither proper enquiry was ever conducted by the Superintendent Jail, nor the petitioners were given opportunity either to cross-examine the witnesses, or to lead evidence in their defence. Nor any proper enquiry under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 was conducted by the Superintendent jail.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard.;