nor the Regulations provide for 'deemed
suspension'. No rules are framed
regulating the payment of subsistence
allowance while an employee is placed
under suspension. In view of the settled
legal position as laid down in R.P.Kapur
Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1964 SC 787,
Balvantray Ratilal Patel Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC page
80 and has ruled in the case of Cap. M.
Paul Anothony Vs. Bharat Clamps Ltd. And
Anor. reported in (1994) 3 SCC 679, if
there is no provision regulating the
payment of subsistence allowance then the
public servant or an employee is entitled
to receive full emoluments during the
period of suspension. The employees of
private secondary school are, therefore,
entitled to receive full emoluments which
under suspension. In the present case,
no order of suspension is passed and the
applicant is not able to attend the
school on account of his detention in
jail. The salaries are stopped on the
principle of 'no work no pay'. There are
no rules regarding deemed suspension.
Sec. 36(3) of the Act makes a provision
for suspension but I do not find any
scope of reading deemed suspension in the
said provision. I am aware that most of
the disciplinary proceedings applicable
to various public servants provide for
deemed suspension where an employee is
detained in custody or a criminal charge
or otherwise for continuous period
exceeding 48 hrs. In the present case,
as stated hereinabove, rules do not
provide for deemed suspension. In my
view, it is not possible to accept the
submissions of applicant that he should
be deemed to have been placed under
suspension in view of his detention in
the custody exceeding 48 hrs.
