- (1.) Petitioner Poonam Rani was serving as a Lower Division Clerk in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short 'the Nigam') at Jind. On April 16, 1997 First Information Report No. 204 dated April 16, 1997, under Sections 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against her at Police Station City, Jind along with Deepak, Sukhdev and Bhalla alias Rajesh on the allegation that they (Deepak, Sukhdev and Bhalla alias Rajesh), in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of cash amount to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- and two cheques for Rs. 37,000/- from the office of the Nigam at Jind and Poonam (petitioner) connived with them and helped them in committing the robbery. However, they were acquitted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide judgment dated August 9, 2005 (Annexure P-9). No appeal against the order of acquittal was preferred by the Nigam.
(2.) The petitioner was also proceeded against departmentally. However, vide inquiry report (Annexure P-5(b), the Inquiry Officer found that none of the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer had pointed out anything doubting the involvement of the petitioner in the incident of robbery.
(3.) After the petitioner had been exonerated in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings, she was reinstated into service vide order dated January 17, 2006 (Annexure P-12). Thereafter, she made representation dated January 25, 2006 (Annexure P-13) requesting the Nigam to treat her suspension period as on duty period and refix her pay by regularizing her suspension period. Instead of deciding the representation, the Superintendent Engineer of the Nigam passed the order dated March 13, 2004 (Annexure P-14) issuing advice to the petitioner to keep herself away from such activities in future. The petitioner then made another representation dated May 9, 2006 (Annexure P-15) in this regard. Her representation was ultimately decided by the Superintending Engineer of the Nigam vide order dated July 17, 2006 (Annexure P-16) and suspension period of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due.;