Firstly, the facts of this case are distinguishable than the facts of this case referred to above. Herein, the Rule itself provides for deemed suspension, thus question of discretion of the authority does not exist so as to direct them to apply their mind before passing of the order of suspension. Secondly, the order of suspension in the corruption cases should not be casually interfered by the Courts keeping in mind the increase of corruption cases day by day. If an employee is caught red handed accepting illegal gratification and kept behind bars, is liable to be suspended, more specifically, when he remained behind bars beyond a period of 48 hours looking to the provisions of deemed suspension. Otherwise also, the cases of corruption, more specifically, acceptance of illegal gratification and officials caught red handed in trap are required to be dealt with properly, as casual approach and interference in the order of suspension is nothing but it may give room to the officials to indulge themselves in the corruption, which otherwise needs to be stopped at all levels.
