MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Prisoner is undergoing imprisonment for life and he is in Jail since 1979. He has been released on parole and furlough from time to time. ( 2 ) ON 21-10-1987, at the time of dinner, the prisoner misbehaved and assaulted watchman Popatji. In respect of that Jail offence, inquiry was held and the prisoner had orally confessed the guilt and order of punishment was passed and the following punishments were imposed : (i) Cut in remission of 15 days. (ii) Withdrawal of canteen facility and separate confinement. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that even though the punishment of forfeiture of furlough was not imposed, the authorities have refused furlough for the year 1988 on the ground that he had committed a Jail offence. ( 4 ) RULE 4 of Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 makes a provision as to when the prisoner shall not be granted furlough and the relevant part reads as follows :"the following categories of prisoners shall not be considered eligible for furlogh. xxx xxx xxx (5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, show tendency towards crime. (6) Prisons whose conduct is, in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison, not satisfactory enough". ( 5 ) THE leanred A. P. P. has submitted that as the prisoner has shown criminal tendency and as his conduct is not satisfactory enough, the petitioner- prisoner is not entitled to be considered for parole and he has been rightly refused parole. ( 6 ) A similar question arising out of Rule 4 (10) had come up before the Full Bench in the case of Bhikhabhai Devshi v. State of Gujarat and ors. , [1987 (2)] 28 (2) GLR 1178. In paras 19 to 23, the provisions for punishment for Jail offences contained in the Act, Rules in the Jail Manual were considered. Of the several permissible and contemplated punishments, loss of privilege admissible under furlough system is also included. , [1987 (2)] 28 (2) GLR 1178. In paras 19 to 23, the provisions for punishment for Jail offences contained in the Act, Rules in the Jail Manual were considered. Of the several permissible and contemplated punishments, loss of privilege admissible under furlough system is also included. Therefore, when the punishing authority is considering Jail offence and the quantum of punishment, takes into consideration the gravity of offence and commensurate punishment and it is open to the punishing authority to impose punishment of forfeiture of furlough with or without combining other punishment and the Full Bench held that if the provisions of Rule 4 (10) are held to be mandatory making prisoners automatically disqualified and ineligible for furlough in all cases of late surrender, that provision would be clearly inconsistent with Sec. 48 of the Prisons Act and both cannot stand together and the Full Bench came to the conclusion that the punishing authority may decide to impose punishment other than the punishment of forfeiture of furlough having regard to the facts, circumstances and gravity of late surrender. In such cases, furlough will remain due to the prisoner. It was also held that Rule 1316 of the Bombay Jail Manual provides that no prisoner shall be punished twice for the same offence. Thus, once the prisoner is punished for his offence, the matter of prison offence will rest there and any other punishment thereafter for the same act of misconduct is barred. ( 7 ) A more apposite case arising out of Rule 4 (6) was also considered by the Full Bench being the case of Atulji Magaji v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1984 GLH 139 . In that case, for the prison offence, of taking "khichadi" instead of loaves and purchase of lemons from the Jail canteen, remission of 5 days was cut for each of these two offences and thereafter when the furlough became due, he was considered ineligible by the Jail authorities. The Division Bench held that such trivial Jail offences and minor lapses could not be said to be such as would enable the Superintendent of Prisons to form an opinion that the conduct of the prisoner was not satisfactory enough to deprive him of his privilege of furlough. The Division Bench held that such trivial Jail offences and minor lapses could not be said to be such as would enable the Superintendent of Prisons to form an opinion that the conduct of the prisoner was not satisfactory enough to deprive him of his privilege of furlough. Had that been so, the furlough would have been forfeited by imposing that punishment and it was therefore, held that even though the prisoner had committed minor prison offences, he did not forfeit the privilege of furlough and his request for furlough was required to be considered on merits. This view has been approved by the Full Bench. ( 8 ) IN view of these two judgments, in the present case also the punishing authority has taken into consideration the gravity of prison offence and has come to the conclusion that remission of cut of 15 days is sufficient and commensurate with the guilt. The punishing authority has not thought it fit to impose punishment of forfeiture of furlough. In such circumstances, if the Jail authorities were to mechanically refuse furlough, it would be imposing additional punishment of forfeiture of furlough which is clearly illegal. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and rule is made absolute by directing the respondent authorities to grant furlough which was due in 1988 and which has been refused by the authorities, on usual terms and conditions. .