ORDER We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also read the next and tenor of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. This Letter Patent Appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2005 of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWJC No. 9892 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the challenge against the order of suspension, dated 7.10.2004 in the Writ petition came to be rejected with the following observations :- "Needless to state that in case the petitioner of the order in terms of Rule 3A (5)(c) of the Rules, the authority concerned shall consider the same in accordance with law." 2. The only contention which is advanced before us is that the suspension order could not have been passed with retrospective effect. In support of this, it is contended that the impugned order of suspension came to be recorded on 7.10.2004 giving effect from 6.1.2004, the date on which the appellant was taken into custody in connection with the celebrated case known as "Bitumen Scam Case" in the Vigilance matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is on going. 3. At this stage, it is interesting to refer to the relevant provisions of rule 3A of the Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1935 ("Rules"). "3A. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Governor, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, injury or trial. (c) x x x x (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority- (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. Explanation.- The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, imprisonment periods of imprisonment, if any shall be taken into account. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry 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, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decide to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (b) Where a Government servant 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 during the continuance of that suspension the authority competent to place him under suspension may for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the treatment of all or any of such proceedings. (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 4. (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 4. It could very well be seen from the aforesaid Rule provision and service conditions that a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by any order of the competent authority with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in the custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours. The short contention that retrospectivity to the suspension order could not have been .given will fall like pack of cards. There is no dispute about the fact that a serious case, popularly known as "Bitumen Scam Case", is pending wherein the appellant is one of the accused persons and he has been placed under suspension with effect from the date when he was taken into custody. Again, the suspension order is not a penalty in the light of the facts of the present case. It is an incidence resulting on account of the arrest having been made of the appellant. So, how a deeming fiction translated into a written order later on, could be said to be illegal or unauthorised? In our opinion, the entire Letters Patent Appeal is without any substance and merit. 5. In the result, the appeal shall stand dismissed at the threshold, after hearing both the parties. No costs.