AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 3/5.4.2013 by which the remission of 90 days was deducted from his leave account. It is submitted that the petitioner was released on 12-5-2011 on furlough leave for 14 days. The petitioner surrendered late by 30 days for the first
time. The respondent issued show cause notice. The petitioner replied the said notice stating that because of the illness of his mother, he could not surrender within time. Explanation is not considered and his absence of 30 days was deducted into 90 day by multiplying 3 days, therefore prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.
Respondents have submitted in the reply that as per the rules, deduction of 90 days leave from the account of petitioner is legal and proper because he did not surrender within time. The punishment was also approved by the Principal District Judge, Amravati.
From the perusal of remission rules, it is clear that respondents have not passed illegal order. As per the remission rules, if the convict reports late on a first time for more than 30 days, then leave is to be deducted by multiplying 3 days. There is no dispute that the petitioner reported late to the prison by 30 days. His explanation was not found satisfactory. He has not produced any certificate of illness of his mother during that period. Certificate which was produced by the petitioner was after the date of surrender and therefore, respondents have rightly passed the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii) Fees of the learned counsel Ms. Hiwase appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1500/-.