JUDGMENT 1. THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not withdrawing the order of suspension issued to him on November 16, 2009. The respondent no. 1 is Indian Statistical Institute and respondents nos. 2 and 3 are its Director and Chief Executive (Administrative and Finance) respectively. 2. THE petitioner is an employee of the respondent no. 1. THE case made out by him is that his wife Late Ruma Bhattacharjee was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries and died on October 17, 2009. On the basis of a written complaint by the father of the deceased wife, Airport Police Station case no. 199 of 2009 was started against the petitioner under Ss. 498 A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On October 27, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the above case. His prayer for bail was rejected. On November 16, 2009 the respondent no. 3 issued an Office Order placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest which was to continue until further orders. The Order mentioned that the same was issued under Clause 9.2 (b) of the Standing Service Order of the respondent no. 1. This Office Order has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure A-1. It appears from the petition that on December 8, 2009 the petitioner was released on bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, while passing the said order had considered the statement made by the daughter of the deceased made under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statement made by the deceased to the doctor who did not implicate her husband for the alleged commission of offence and considering the period of detention the learned Judge enlarged the petitioner on bail. 3. THE petitioner thereafter through his learned Advocate made a prayer for lifting of the order of suspension to the respondent no. 3. Suspension, however, till now has not been lifted. Yet another factor about the Criminal Case against the petitioner is worth mentioning. THE police had submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner under Ss. 498 A/ 306/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is pending before the appropriate court for trial. 4. 3. Suspension, however, till now has not been lifted. Yet another factor about the Criminal Case against the petitioner is worth mentioning. THE police had submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner under Ss. 498 A/ 306/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is pending before the appropriate court for trial. 4. THIS specific case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension as a result of initiation of a criminal case against him which has nothing to do with his service and he is entitled to have the order of suspension withdrawn after his release from custody on bail. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding in the respondents to withdraw the order of suspension and to allow him to join his duty with immediate effect. On behalf of the respondents the respondent no. 3 has affirmed an affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was detained in judicial custody and as such they had no alternative but to place him under suspension in terms of Clause 9.2 (b) of the Standing Service Order of the respondent no. 1. The respondents have also stated that it had come to their knowledge that after the completion of the investigation a charge sheet has been submitted and in that no allegation of murder or dowry death was brought home against him. They seemed to have expressed their helplessness in the matter of lifting the order of suspension as there is no specific provision in the Standing Service Order regarding the same during the pendency of a case against one of the employees and as a result they could not entertain the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of the order of suspension. 5. THEY frankly submitted that they would comply with the order as may be passed by this Court. It is worth quoting the relevant portion of the Standing Service Order which was invoked for placing the petitioner under suspension. Clause 9.2. 5. THEY frankly submitted that they would comply with the order as may be passed by this Court. It is worth quoting the relevant portion of the Standing Service Order which was invoked for placing the petitioner under suspension. Clause 9.2. (a) In other cases, a worker can be placed under suspension when (b) The worker is kept in custody by public authorities on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period of more than 72 hours, such suspension being effective for the entire duration of the period of custody, The language of Clause- 9.2 makes it clear that a worker can be placed under suspension on the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c). Here we are concerned with clauses- (b). This is an enabling provision which entitles the employer to place an employee under suspension and this is no deeming suspension in which case not even a formal order of suspension is necessary as it takes effect automatically after the employee is in custody for the period stipulated in the relevant service rules. As such the stand of the respondents that they had no other alternative but to place the petitioner under suspension is perhaps not a very valid one. 6. THAT apart, clause- 9.2 (b) contemplates that a worker can be placed under suspension where he has been kept in custody by public authorities on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period of more than 72 hours and such suspension is effective for the entire duration of the period of custody. The language is very clear that during the period of detention of an employee in the custody the order of suspension shall be effective. In other words, the moment he is released from detention the order of suspension shall not be effective. The respondents plea that there is no specific provision of withdrawal of an order of suspension during the criminal case does not seem to be very well placed. If an employee is kept in custody on a criminal charge and if the suspension is to be effective for the entire duration of the period of custody it is a matter of common sense that the criminal case may continue and when the Standing Service Order was prepared the authorities must have taken that into consideration. If an employee is kept in custody on a criminal charge and if the suspension is to be effective for the entire duration of the period of custody it is a matter of common sense that the criminal case may continue and when the Standing Service Order was prepared the authorities must have taken that into consideration. The language employed in clause- 9.2 (b) is that suspension shall be effective only during the period of the custody and not during the pendency of the criminal case. The criminal case may continue for years and there is no point in keeping an employee in suspension during this entire period, more so when the charges alleged against him do not directly or indirectly relate to any of his acts in connection with his place of work. 7. THE situation might have been different if the relevant service rules had contemplated a deeming provision of suspension which usually continues until further orders. 8. IN the present case the language makes it quite clear that the suspension of an employee is co-terminous with the period of his actual detention in custody. Since most of the judgments on the point deal with a deeming provision of suspension the same cannot be applied here as in the present Standing Service Order of the respondent no. 1 there is no provision for the continuation of the period of suspension until the same is revoked or an appropriate order is passed by the employer. Here, language is plain, clear and unambiguous. Moreover, the intention is clear from the note to clause- 9.3 which specifically mentions that suspension generally affects the prestige of a worker to a certain extent and it should not therefore be resorted to except when the charge sheet is for any action or default that may, if proved, be punished with either dismissal or removal from service. Here the charge sheet obviously refers to a charge sheet that may be issued in connection with a disciplinary proceeding against an employee, and not a charge sheet that is submitted by the Investigating Agency in a criminal case. Merely because a criminal case is pending against an employee and when such case has no connection with the discharge of his duties an employee cannot be kept under suspension till he is acquitted by the criminal court. Merely because a criminal case is pending against an employee and when such case has no connection with the discharge of his duties an employee cannot be kept under suspension till he is acquitted by the criminal court. There is always a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and, as has been held in Arindum Sarkar -vs- Union of India, reported in 2010 (2) CHN (CAL) 524, this fundamental presumption does not get altered even if an accused is committed to trial. Time and again various courts including the Apex Court has laid down the principle that an employee cannot be kept away from his place of work for an unlimited period. 9. THUS, it is found that the continuance of suspension order in terms of clause- 9.2 (b) of the Standing Service Order after the petitioner has been enlarged on bail was bad in law. The respondents authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join and to pay him his admissible salary from the date of his release on bail after adjusting the amount already paid to him by way of subsistence allowance. It is needless to say that if ultimately the petitioner is found guilty and convicted in the criminal trial that is pending against him the respondents authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against him in accordance with law. I further make it clear that this order will not prevent the respondents authorities from taking any other appropriate action against him permissible under any other provision of law. 10. THE writ petition is thus allowed. In the facts of this case there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy, if applied for, will be supplied within seven days from the date of the application.