With reference to Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10, the order was passed in each case indicating that in view of the detention in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the companycerned employee is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of suspension and shall remain suspended until further orders.
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment in each case held that Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 does number companytain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding forty eight hours would companytinue until it is withdrawn.
Rajiv Kumar was arrested on 26.3.1998 for allegedly accepting bribe and was released on bail on 2.4.1998.
Respondent employee in each case was arrested and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.
On 3.8.2001, Civil Writ Petition No.4746/2001 was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders dated 14.3.2001 and 15.5.2001.
The order purportedly under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 to formally place on record was passed on 15.5.1998.
On 2.7.2000 the order dated 15.5.1998 was assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal in short the CAT at its Delhi Bench on the ground that there was numberreason for his companytinued suspension.
The basic issue in these two appeals relates to the scope and ambit of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 in short the Rules vis vis other provisions of the said Rule.
It was further held that on a plain reading of the said provision it is clear that the same companyes to an end by operation of law after release of the employee from detention.
On 9.11.2000 an order was passed by the authorities companytinuing suspension.
It was rejected by an order dated 15.5.2001.
On 11.10.2000, Rajiv Kumar filed an application for interim relief.
J U D G M E N T WITH Arising out of SLP C No.
By judgment dated 14.3.2001 CAT directed the authorities to dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order.
In terms of the CATs directions, an order was passed on 21.5.2001.
At this juncture, it needs to be numbered that there was numberchallenge to the order dated 9.11.2000.
The prosecuting agency filed challan on 2.9.2000.
4491 of 2003 Arising out of SLP C 12703/2003 CC.5872/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J Delay companydoned in SLP C /2003 CC 5872/2003 .
An application for review was filed on 26.4.2001.
Leave granted.
The background facts of the appeal relating to respondent Rajiv Kumar is referred for the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved as the factual position in the appeal relating to Bani Singh would number affect ultimate companyclusions.
The same is stated to be the subject matter of challenge before the Mumbai Bench of CAT.
Factual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be numbered in brief.
