The detention proviso applies only if the employee remains in custody when 90 days expire.

Following his detention for over 48 hours in a CBI case, the respondent was deemed suspended from 7 May 2024 under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, by an order dated 16 May 2024.

He was released on bail on 30 July 2024; the competent authority was informed on 23 August 2024.

The suspension was extended by orders dated 1 October 2024, 6 February 2025 and 14 August 2025.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondent’s challenge, holding that the suspension had not been reviewed within the prescribed period; the Union of India challenged that decision.

Whether the proviso to Rule 10(7) applied where the respondent was released from detention before the initial 90-day period expired, although the authority was informed of his release afterward.

Whether the suspension extensions made after the initial 90-day period had expired, without a timely review, were legally effective.

Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides for deemed suspension from the date a government servant is detained for more than 48 hours.

Under Rule 10(7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 is not valid beyond 90 days unless extended after review before that period expires; the proviso addresses deemed suspension where the government servant continues to be detained at the end of the relevant 90-day period.

Applying Union of India v. Akil Ahmad, Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar and Union of India v. Anil Kumar Tanwar, the Court held that the proviso does not apply if detention ends before the 90-day period expires.

The respondent’s deemed suspension began on 7 May 2024, and the initial 90-day period expired on 4 August 2024.

Although the competent authority was informed of his release on 23 August 2024, the respondent had in fact been released on 30 July 2024, before the 90-day period expired.

The proviso therefore did not apply, and the suspension had to be reviewed within the initial 90 days.

Since no review took place by 4 August 2024, the deemed suspension ceased by operation of Rule 10(7); the later extension orders could not revive it.

It accordingly upheld the Tribunal’s decision, found the subsequent extension orders ineffective, and dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition in limine.