V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai whereby Original Application No. 818 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. In the said O.A. the petitioner prayed for setting aside suspension order issued against him.

4. According to the respondents, the petitioner was detained in custody on a criminal charge under Prevention of Corruption Act for a period exceeding 48 hours, hence, pursuant to Rule 10 (2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, the petitioner came to be suspended.

5. The petitioner was working as District Youth Coordinator in the office of the Nehru Yuva Kenda Sangathan at Thane in Maharashtra. He was admittedly taken into custody by Central Bureau of Investigation at 1.40 a.m. on 9.3.2011 in connection with a crime registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner admits th