1 24 wp.756.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 756 OF 2010 Tanaji @ Munna Sitaram Chourge. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ----- Mr. Murtaza Najmi for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 23 rd August, 2010. P.C. 1 The principal grievance made before us is that the Authority has imposed two punishments for the act of commission and omission of the petitioner in overstaying furlough period. The first punishment is by way of cut in remission and the second is by way of forfeiture of the bond, which was given by the Petitioner. It is next contended that in any case, no notice was given to the Petitioner that the authority intends to invoke the remedy of forfeiture of bond on account of overstaying furlough period by the Petitioner. In response to this argument, the learned APP on instructions submits that if the grievance of the Petitioner is that no fair 2 24 wp.756.10 opportunity was given to the Petitioner that can be assuaged by giving fresh opportunity to the Petitioner. The authority would issue fresh notices in relation to the same act of commission and omission of the Petitioner of overstaying furlough period and indicate in the notice itself as to what is the proposed action that is likely to be taken for the lapse of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the argument canvassed before us, the petition is disposed of on the assurance given by the learned APP that the earlier order stands recalled and instead the Authority would issue fresh notice to the Petitioner of the proposed action and take action against the Petitioner in accordance with law. 2 Petition disposed of on the above terms. All questions are kept open. [ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]