The facts demonstrate that the petitioner was acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings and also the criminal proceedings. The order of reinstatement dated 20.12.2003 passed by the Chief Engineer, O&M, R.T.S., Ramagundam, refers to the fact that the petitioner was kept under suspension with effect from 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003. Thereafter, the said authority, having taken note of the result in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, stated that after consideration of the issue he ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. The said order is silent as to how the period of suspension shall be treated. It was only when the petitioner made a representation on 13.02.2004 that the disciplinary authority passed the subsequent order dated 07.04.2004, impugned in this Writ Petition, stating that the period of suspension would be treated as leave without pay. The silence of the disciplinary authority with regard to this aspect at the time of ordering reinstatement would normally mean that the reinstatement of the petitioner was without any conditions attached to it. This silence vested the petitioner with the right to assume that the period of his suspension would be regularized and that there would be no adverse effect caused to him by the said suspension.
