V.K. Tahilramani, J.

Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2010, he was released on furlough on 19.11.2010. He had to surrender on 4.12.2010, however, on 1.11.2012, when he was going to surrender to the prison, he met with an accident and therefore he was disoriented and could not report back to the prison. Thus, there was overstay of 674 days. On account of this, his remission has been cut. Further it is the case of the petitioner that earlier he was appointed to the post of convict overseer, however, after he came back to the prison, he was not reappointed to the post of convict overseer. Thus, it the case of the petitioner that he was punished twice for the same offence i.e. for overstay while he was on furlough.

4. The petitioner had to surrender on 4.12.2010, however, the case of the petitioner is that he was going to surrender to the prison on 1.11.2012 when he met with an accident. This is after about two years from the date, when he had to actually surrender back to the prison. There is no explanation for these two years why the petitioner did not report back to the prison on his own