JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 12703/2003 (CC 5872/2003).

Leave granted.

2. 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-a-vis other provisions of the said Rule.

3. Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgment in each case held that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 does not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn. It was further held that on a plain reading of the said provision it is clear that the same comes to an end by operation of law after release of the employee from detention.

4. Factual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.

5. Respondent-employee in each case was arrested and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. 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 concerned employee is deemed to have been suspended