JUDGMENT S. Roy & B.P. Singh, JJ. By this application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order as contained in Annexure 2 dated 25.8.1987 by which he was suspended with effect from 1.8.1987, when he was arrested by the Police. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the composite order of suspension under Rules 99 and 100 of Bihar Service Code could not have been passed and that respondent No. 4 has no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. 3. Since the petitioner was arrested by the Police on 1.8 1987 and was released on bail on 14.8.1987, during that period, he shall be deemed to be suspended by operation of law under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code. The petitioner can not challenge the order of suspension so far this period is concerned. So far the period after he was released, i.e., from 15.8.1987, the competent authority, if so advised, ought to have passed the order under Rule 100 by disclosing the grounds on which suspension of the petitioner was necessary. So far Annexure 2 is concerned, nothing has been said why the petitioner was required to be suspended under Rule 100, because it does not disclose that any departmental proceeding was pending or contemplated or he was suspended because he was accused in the criminal case. 4. The petition, therefore, must succeed in part. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner shall be deemed under suspension for the period 1.8.1987 to 14.8.1987. Since there is no valid order for the period 15.8.1987 and onwards, be shall not in law be under suspension. It is made clear that the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law.