Judgment S. B. Sinha and R. N. Sahay, JJ. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropr iate writ for quashing an office order dated 26-8-1988 and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to be placed under suspension by the respondent No.1 purported to be in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Rule 24.7 (1 ) (a) of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules of Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to and called for the sake of brevity as the said Rules ). 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. A first information report was lodged on 8-8-1988 alleging inter alia therein that one C. D. Ram Accountant of the State Bank of India, Kathura branch entered into a conspiracy and in pursuance whereof he allegedly misused dishonestly the Bank deposits in between April 1986, to May, 1988. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. However, on the basis of statement made by one C. K. Mishra purported to be under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was arrested on 20th August, 1988. Alleg dly, on 29-8-1988, the said C. K. Mishra retraced his statement and alleged that he gave statement under Sec.164 cr. P. C. as be was tortured by the officials of the C. B. I. 4. The petitioner was granted bail on 20th September, 1988, and the said order of provisional bail was confirmed on 17-3-1989. 5. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the aforementioned order dated 26-8-1988. 6. According to the petitioner, neither any chargesheet has been submitted nor any departmental proceeding is contemplated against him. 7. According to the petitioner, therefore, he having been released on bail cannot be kept under suspension. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. It has been contandedthat the petitioner was rightly placed under deemed suspension in terms of rule 24 (7) (i) (a) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. It has further been contended that a letter has already been sent to the Deputy inspector General, C. E. I, dated 15th September, 1990 (Annexure-7) asking clarification from them as to whether the petitioner should be continued to be kept under suspension or not. 9. It has further been contended that a letter has already been sent to the Deputy inspector General, C. E. I, dated 15th September, 1990 (Annexure-7) asking clarification from them as to whether the petitioner should be continued to be kept under suspension or not. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reading the provision of Rule 24.7 and 24.1 (c) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 framed by Coal India Ltd. , it would be evident that an employee can not be kept under suspension when he has already been enlarged on bail. In this connection, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in 1988 Bihar Law Judgment 756 (Sidhinath Jha V/s. State of Bihar)as also on an order dated 7-1-1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyendra Tiwary V/s. State of Bihar being C. W. J. C. No.2396 of 1990 (R ). 10. It is not in dispute that the provisions of Conduct Discipline and appeal Rules, 1978 framed by Coal India Ltd. is applicable to the case of the petitioner. Clause 24.1 (c), 24.7 (1) (a) and 24.8 read as follows : to "24.1. An authority of the Company delegated with the powers suspend may place an employee under suspension : (c) where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.24.7 (i) An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to suspend : (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours.24.8. Where an employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him/her during the continuance of that suspension the authority competent to place him/her under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him/her in writing direct that the employee shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any such proceedings. " 11. In this case, the basic facts are not disputed that the petitioner was taken in custody on 20th August, 1988 and he had been released on bail on 17-3-1989. " 11. In this case, the basic facts are not disputed that the petitioner was taken in custody on 20th August, 1988 and he had been released on bail on 17-3-1989. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent in exercise of its power conferred upon it under rule 24.7 (i) (a) of the aforementioned Rules. 12. In terms of Rule 24.1, an employee may be placed under suspension by a competent authority inter alia where a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial against the employee concerned. Rule 24.1. therefore, would be attracted in a case where a competent authority exercises his power thereunder and place the employee under suspension on the ground that a criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial against him. Rule 24.7, however, creates a legal fiction whereby and whereunder an employee is deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of his detention if he is sustained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48-hours. 13. It is, therefore, clear that a legal fiction has been created in placing an employee under suspension for a limited purpose, namely, so long he is detained in custody. However, if an employee is required to be placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial, a suitable order in this regard will have to be passed by the competent authority. Rule 24.1 and 24.7 therefore, operate in different fields. 14. Rule 24.8 takes within its umbredge a case of an employee who has been placed under suspension or deemed to have been suspended as in terms thereof the authority competent to placs an employee under suspension may direct that employee shall continue to bs under suspension until the termination of all or an any such proceeding which includes disciplinary proceeding. 15. The words whether in connection with a disciplinary proceeding or otherwise used in Rule 24.8 when read in conjunction with Rule 24.1 as also Rule 24.7, in on opinion, leave no room for doubt that it not only includes a disciplinary proceeding but also includes criminal proceedings. 16. It is now well known that a legal fiction created cannot be stretched beyond the object for which it has been created. 17. 16. It is now well known that a legal fiction created cannot be stretched beyond the object for which it has been created. 17. As noticed hereinbefore, an order of deemed suspension could have been passed only if one or the other conditions mentioned in Rule 24.7 is satisfied. Once a person comes out of a detention, he cannot be kept under deemed suspension. In the event the employer consider it expedient to pass a fresh order of suspension, the same may either be done under Rule 24.1 or can be directed to continue in terms of Rule 24.8 for which, reasons are required to be recorded in writing. 18. It is, therefore, clear that unless and until an order is passed either under Rule 24.1 or under Rule 24.8, the order of deemed suspension will come to an end as soon as the concerned employee is released on bail. 19. In this case, it is submitted that no departmental proceeding has yet been initiated against the petition on although period of two years and 9 months have elapsed since the date of passing of the order of suspension as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. In Sidhinath Jha (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the matter and held that once an employee is released on bail in a criminal case, he cannot be kept under suspension unless an order in relation thereto is passed under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code. 20. A similar view has been taken by us in Satyandra Tiwary V/s. State of bihar, being CWJC 2396 of 1990 (R) disposed of on 7-1-1991. 21. Taking thus all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we are of the opinion that the order of suspension as contained in Annexure 1 passed as against the petitioner cannot be sustained after 17-3-1989 when the petitioner was released on bail. In this view of the matter, it is held that after 17-3-1989 when the petitioner was released on bail, he would be deemed to be not under order of suspension. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the authorities concerned to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner or may take such appropriate action or actions against him as they may deems fit and proper. 22. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the authorities concerned to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner or may take such appropriate action or actions against him as they may deems fit and proper. 22. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.