Deemed suspension on custody beyond forty-eight hours operates automatically and continues until revoked under service rules.

Rule 4(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 creates an automatic deeming suspension when a Government servant remains in police or judicial custody for more than forty-eight hours. That deemed suspension operates from the date of detention without requiring a fresh discretionary order, and Rule 5(a) keeps it in force until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority. On that basis, custody beyond forty-eight hours was treated as deemed suspension continuing until reinstatement after acquittal, and the period could not be regarded as unauthorised absence or altered by a later formal suspension order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Government servant who remained in police custody for more than forty-eight hours stood deemed to be under suspension from the date of detention under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, and whether such suspension continued until modified or revoked under Rule 5(a), with the consequence that the period could not be treated as unauthorised absence.

Analysis: Rule 4(2)(a) creates a deeming fiction of suspension from the date of detention where police or judicial custody exceeds forty-eight hours. The legal effect of such deeming provision is automatic and does not depend upon a fresh discretionary order by the appointing authority. Rule 5(a) further provides that an order of suspension, whether made or deemed, continues until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority. Applying these rules, the period of custody beyond forty-eight hours resulted in deemed suspension, which remained operative until reinstatement after acquittal, and the later formal suspension order could not alter that legal position.

Conclusion: The suspension was deemed to have commenced on the expiry of forty-eight hours of custody and continued until reinstatement. The period was rightly not treated as duty, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's determination granting consequential service benefits for the suspension period was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming provision of suspension operates automatically on fulfillment of the prescribed custody condition and continues in force until lawfully modified or revoked by the competent authority.

---