JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 27th January, 2012 and 27th December, 2017, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, thereby removing; his name from the remission register permanently, and rejecting his request for re-entering his name in the remission register.

3. The Petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and was sentenced for life imprisonment. The Petitioner was released on parole for 30 days on 14th November, 2007, pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. But after expiry of the said period of parole, Petitioner did not surrender to the jail authorities and was required to be arrested and brought back to the jail by the police after a long period of 1237 days. As per the provisions of law and Prison Manual, the Petitioner was treated as absconding for more than six months and his name was permanently removed from the remission register. The Petitioner claims that due to serious illness of his mother and sudden death of his father, as there was nobody in the family to take care of his ailing mother, he could not surrender before the jail authorities within time. After his arrest, the Petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 5th May, 2011, as to why he should not be penalized for breach of terms and conditions of parole, for remaining outside the jail for 1237 days, unauthorizedly, and not returning on his own. The Petitioner submitted reply communicating the fact of his mother's illness and sudden death of his father. After submitting the reply, the Petitioner was not communicated in this regard and meanwhile he was granted parole and furlough for nine times and on each occasion, he surrendered within time before the jail authority.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had again filed a request application to Respondent No. 2 on 11th December, 2017, mentioning therein all the circumstances for his overstay and requested to re-enter his name in the remission register. However, Respondent No. 2, by its order dated 27th December, 2017, turned down the request made by the Petitioner. Hence this Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the orders passed by Respondent No. 2, dated 27th January, 2012 and 27th December, 2017.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has given reply to the show cause and stated that his mother was seriously ill and due to sudden death of his father, as there was nobody in the family to take care of his mother, he could not surrender before the jail authority within time. It is submitted that without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner the impugned orders are passed, and before passing the impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the act of the Petitioner in not returning to the jail within time was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances, i.e. serious illness of his mother and sudden death of his father, he could not surrender before the jail authorities within time. Learned counsel further submits that the guidelines provided by the Government with regard to imposition of punishment were not followed. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. In support of her submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the unreported Judgments of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in the case of Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naydu vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2017, Coram: Prasanna B. Varale and Smt. Vibhakankanwadi, JJ. dated 2nd February, 2018 and in the case of Dhanraj S/o Tanhu Marathe vs. State of