Judgment ( 1 ) WE have heard Mr. Manish Shishodia and Mr. S. S. Bhandawat Addl. Advocate General and also gone through the extract of the report of the Advisory Board which has been filed as Ex. R/2 by the State. The Advisory Board has recommended the premature release of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the present petitioner has already served his sentence of nearly 18 years 4 months and 8 days uptil 31-10-92 including the remission as being taking into consideration. The report of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police and the petitioners conduct as a whole the Advisory Board has recommended as under : ( 2 ) THE Deputy Secretary, Jail to the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated of 2-4-93 informed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Udaipur that since petitioner was awarded Jail Punishment for jail offences, as such his conduct cannot be said to be exemplary. Consequently Government rejected the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release. The said order reads as follows : ( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up before the Court on 17/01/1994 having noticed that the Advisory Board has recommended the premature release of the petitioner and that it was also mentioned in the report that the petitioner has been punished in the year 1986 for the escape of 22 prisoners from the Banswara District Jail, the Court directed that the record of the inquiry and order of punishment be produced for the perusal of the Court. Mr. Bhandawat has submitted that an application has been filed on 1-2-1994 along with he has placed on record documents Ex. R / 3 and R/ 4 and we have gone through these two documents and reference has also been made about this matter in the report of the Advisory Board. It appears that the allegation against the present petitioner was that he had co-operated with the head guard in taking the prisoner Rakma s/o. Bhirji to his village Sagatlai and on this account way back in the year 1986 the petitioner was reverted but he was again promoted as convict night watchman vide order dated 27/12/1986 and thus he suffered this reversion for a period of 5 days only. ( 4 ) HAVING considered the documents which have been filed by the State of Rajasthan as Ex. ( 4 ) HAVING considered the documents which have been filed by the State of Rajasthan as Ex. R/ 3 and R/4 and the report of the Advisory Board it is apparent that there was no serious allegation against the petitioner. This, by itself, could hardly justify the rejection of recommendation in favour of the petitioner by the Advisory Board. We have also noticed that the petitioner availed paroles more than once as ordered by the jail authority. This court has also granted parole to the present petitioner and he is still on parole because it was ordered on 20th Dec. , 1993 by this court in this petition that he will surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Udaipur in case this petition fails. ( 5 ) SO far as the Government is concerned the relevant rule under Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 is Rule 12 and the same is reproduced as under :-"12. Consideration by Government.- On receipt of the proceedings of the Advisory Board, and other relevant papers, the Government shall order release of prisoner in cases for which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case,it considers that the prisoner may be released without any danger to the society. In case of a prisoner sentenced Court-Martial the Government shall forward its recommendations to the Government of India far necessary orders. " ( 6 ) THUS, on receipt of the proceedings of the Advisory Board the Government shall order the release of the prisoners in cases for which it considers that the prisoners may be released without any danger to the society. The order D/- 2/04/1993 does not disclose any such reason whereas the Advisory Board has taken into consideration all the relevant factors as mentioned in R. 10. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion the petitioners premature release after recommendation of the Advisory Board could be withheld by the State only on the ground that such release could be dangerous to the society. As against this in the case at hand all that has been mentioned by the Government is that present petitioner has been punished with regard to his conduct by the Jail authority. As against this in the case at hand all that has been mentioned by the Government is that present petitioner has been punished with regard to his conduct by the Jail authority. The only punishment to which he was subjected by the Jail Authority is his reversion for a period of 5 days and in our opinion this is not at all a reason which can be said to be a germane to the considerations under R. 12. ( 8 ) WITH the aforesaid observations this petition is allowed, the Govt. order D / - 2/04/1993 withholding pre-mature release even after the recommendation of the Advisory Board is held illegal and same is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is on parole from 20/12/1993 and he need not surrender again with the success of this petition. However the petitioner will have to execute a bond in prescribed Form 2, given in the appendix to these rules of 1958 as has been directed by the Advisory Board in its report under consideration. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is allowed as indicated above and the order D/ - 20-12-93 is made absolute. Petition allowed.