Deemed suspension under custody starts review clock from detention, and repeated extensions may create a continuing cause of action.

Under Rule 10, a Government servant detained in custody for more than 48 hours is deemed under suspension from the date of detention, so the 90-day review period runs from that effective date, not from the later formal suspension order. Continuation of suspension beyond that period without timely review is invalid. On limitation, the challenge was not shown to have been argued before the Tribunal, and repeated extensions of suspension were treated as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, so the original application was not time-barred. The writ petition therefore failed and the Tribunal's relief remained in force.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, for the purpose of review under Rule 10, the 90-day period is to be counted from the deemed date of suspension in custody or from the date on which the suspension order was actually issued; (ii) whether the original application was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether, for the purpose of review under Rule 10, the 90-day period is to be counted from the deemed date of suspension in custody or from the date on which the suspension order was actually issued.

Analysis: Rule 10(2) treats a Government servant detained in custody for more than 48 hours as deemed to be under suspension from the date of detention. The review requirement under Rule 10(6) and the validity condition under Rule 10(7) operate from that effective date. The material date was therefore the date of detention, not the later date on which the formal suspension order was issued.

Conclusion: The 90-day period had to be counted from the deemed date of suspension in custody, and the continuation of suspension beyond that period without timely review was invalid. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): whether the original application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The objection on limitation was not shown to have been argued before the Tribunal, and the repeated extensions of suspension created a continuing cause of action. On that basis, the challenge could not be rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The original application was not barred by limitation. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the Tribunal's order granting relief to the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a deemed suspension under Rule 10(2), the statutory period for mandatory review runs from the date of detention, and repeated continuation of suspension can constitute a continuing cause of action for challenge.

---