TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of investigation, Bangalore on 4th July, 1991 in connection with crime Case No. Re-21 (A)/91 for offences punishable under sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC read with Section 9 of the prevention of Corruption Act. He remained in police custody till 8th July, 1991 i. e. , for a period of more than 48 hours. In terms of Rule 22 (2) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondent company, the petitioner was deemed to have been suspended; and a memo dated 9th of July, 1991 issued to him to that effect. ( 2 ) SOME time later a charge-sheet was filed by the CBI against the petitioner and three others in the court of the Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, who by his order dated 22-2-1993 discharged the petitioner and the other three accused holding that no case was made out by the prosecution to warrant framing of any charge against them. Against this order of discharge a Criminal Review Petition No. 216 of 1993 has been filed in this Court which has been admitted to hearing on 16-6-1993. The revision petition is still pending disposal. ( 3 ) ARMED with the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate, the petitioner made a representation on 25th february, 1993, to the respondent-company praying for revocation of the suspension order passed against him. This was followed by a reminder and another representation dated 26th july, 1993, making a similar request. Having invoked no response from the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to revoke the suspension order and to give to the petitioner all consequential benefits including promotion etc. ( 4 ) IN response to a notice issued by this Court, the respondent has appeared and filed a statement of objections. In the objections it has been pointed out that on account of the admission of a criminal revision petition against the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and also on account of the fact that the respondent has already initiated a domestic enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet dated 4th October, 1993 served upon him, the respondent has decided to continue the petitioner under suspension. It has been further pointed out that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is in progress, and is being conducted by one Krishnan Das, Manager (Finance) Internal audit of the Corporate Office. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and pursued the record. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the suspension of the petitioner had been ordered on account of his arrest in connection with a criminal case, with the discharge of the petitioner from the said case, the said suspension must automatically come to an end. He urged that in the absence of a fresh order of suspension from the competent authority, the respondent is under an obligation to reinstate the petitioner and give him all the consequential benefits of arrears of salary and promotions etc. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand urged that since a departmental enquiry has already been initiated and is in progress, the respondent had the option of continuing the petitioner under suspension pending the finalisation of the said enquiry. He further urged that the respondent having decided to continue the suspension, there is no reason why the same should be interfered with by this Court. ( 7 ) THE service conditions of the employees of there spondent-company are governed by the Indian Telephone industries Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, Rule 22 of the said rules to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes reads thus:" (1) The competent authority or any authority may place an employee under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid he had engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the company; (c) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the competent authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (2) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the competent authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee under suspension is set aside an appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall remain in force until further or- ders. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the competent authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. " ( 8 ) A plain reading of sub-rule (2) makes it clear that an employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention and shall remain under suspension until further orders. In other words, the detention of an employee for the stipulated period of more than 48 hours by itself results in an employee being placed under suspension. In other words, the detention of an employee for the stipulated period of more than 48 hours by itself results in an employee being placed under suspension. The rationale behind this provision appears to be that an employee who is facing a criminal charge and has been arrested and detained for a period exceeding 48 hours, in that connection should by reason of the existence of any such charge and detention, be placed under suspension. In any such case it is reasonable to assume that upon termination of such a criminal charge in favour of the employee the automatic suspension envisaged by the rule, will have to be revoked, notwithstanding the fact that sub-rule (2) provides that the suspension of the employee shall continue until further orders of the competent authority. It is indeed difficult to countenance a situation where even after the acquittal or discharge of the employee from the criminal case, the competent authority may at its discretion continue the suspension till such time it chooses to pass an order to the contrary. A reasonable interpretation of sub-rule (2) would require the competent authority to consider fairly and objectively the question of revoking the suspension of the employee once it is brought to its notice that the employee has been acquitted of the criminal charge in connection with which he had been taken into custody. Any other interpretation of sub-rule (2) is bound to clothe the competent authority with an arbitrary and wide power of continuing the suspension of an employee at this discretion, for no better reason than the fact that the employee had been taken in custody by the police, no matter the charge in connection with which he was so arrested had failed in the court. ( 9 ) LEFT at that the petitioner may have been entitled to an order of revocation of the suspension as he has been discharged in the criminal case filed against him by the competent court. What, however, comes in his way in getting reinstated is the fact that the subsequent to the order of the discharge passed by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the competent authority has initiated a domestic enquiry into the imputation of the misconduct made against him. What, however, comes in his way in getting reinstated is the fact that the subsequent to the order of the discharge passed by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the competent authority has initiated a domestic enquiry into the imputation of the misconduct made against him. The question as to whether the petitioner should continue to remain under suspension during the pendency of the said enquiry, appears to have been considered by the competent authority, and it was decided that the petitioner's suspension ordered in terms of memo dated 9th july, 1991, would continue during the pendency of the domestic enquiry proceedings. This is apparent from the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner, in which the following significant statement has been made:"it is proposed to hold an inquiry against Shri B. Balachandra Rai, Assistant Personnel Manager, Staff No. 3628-L, under Rule 26 of the Conduct, Discipline and appeal Rules, 1975 of ITI Ltd. The suspension Order No. CPA/asp. 3628-L (100) issued on 9-7-1991 will continue to be operative during the pendency of proceedings in accordance with these articles of charges. The substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charges (Annexure-I ). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II ). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV ). " (emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) THE power of the competent authority to direct suspension of an employee during the period disciplinary proceedings remain pending against the employee is not disputed as indeed the same cannot be disputed in view of the clear provisions of rule 22 (1) of the rules. In exercise of that power, if the competent authority decides to continue the suspension of an employee even after the employee has been discharged by the competent court, such a suspension cannot be said to be illegal or incompetent. In exercise of that power, if the competent authority decides to continue the suspension of an employee even after the employee has been discharged by the competent court, such a suspension cannot be said to be illegal or incompetent. The very fact that one justification for suspending the employee has come to end by reason of the discharge or acquittal of the employee from the competent court, does not ipso facto mean that the employee cannot be placed under suspension or that the order of suspension passed earlier continued if after the conclusion of the proceedings before the competent court a departmental enquiry is initiated against him. This is precisely what has happened in the instant case. The disciplinary proceedings are admittedly pending and the competent authority has taken a decision to continue the suspension of the petitioner during the pendency of the said proceedings. I do not find any lack of jurisdiction on the part of the competent authority to have ordered so, to warrant any interference with the same. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner however, contended that in order to justify the suspension of the petitioner beyond the date of his discharge from the criminal case, it was necessary for the competent authority to have issued. a formal order after revoking his earlier suspension. I do not see any substance even in this submission of the learned counsel. The competent authority having decided to conduct a domestic enquiry and to continue the petitioner under suspension during the same, it was not necessary to pass a formal order revoking the earlier suspension or issuing a fresh order of suspension. The intention of the competent authority to continue the petitioner under suspension is apparent from the charge-sheet served upon him in which the suspension has been specifically ordered to continue. This in my opinion is a substantial compliance with the requirement of Rule 22 and therefore should suffice for validly continuing the petitioner's suspension during the period the domestic enquiry remains pending. It is also apparent that the petitioner is under suspension as on date not because of his having been arrested and detained for more than 48 hours but by reason of the pendency of the departmental enquiry against him. It is also apparent that the petitioner is under suspension as on date not because of his having been arrested and detained for more than 48 hours but by reason of the pendency of the departmental enquiry against him. No useful purpose would therefore be served by quashing the earlier order of suspension for it will obviously be an exercise in futility on account of the competent authority's decision to continue the petitioner under suspension during the period of the domestic enquiry. ( 12 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is however, directed that the respondent shall expedite the domestic enquiry being conducted against the petitioner and complete the same as far as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. --- *** --- .