In the course of public administration, it is not uncommon to encounter resistance, disagreement, or even bureaucratic obstacles. But every once in a while, one is faced with a situation so steeped in manipulation, personal agendas, and blatant misuse of institutional processes that it demands to be documented, if only to expose the dark underbelly of organizational politics. This is precisely what transpired in the case involving Ms. Bhuvan Gautam, Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, and myself, during my tenure as Director at NIPER Mohali.
Let me begin by laying out the core of the issue.
Ms. Bhuvan Gautam joined NIPER Mohali on deputation from an institute in Punjab on March 5, 2014, for a fixed period of two years. Her initial tenure was extended twice—first until March 4, 2017, and then again for one more year until March 4, 2018. At the end of this extension, her continuation was neither feasible nor legally sustainable under the existing rules governing deputation.
The rules were crystal clear: absorption of deputations in such cases was not permissible, especially since NIPER Mohali was already entangled in a court case regarding a similar issue. Therefore, any further extension or absorption would not only violate policy but also potentially compromise the institute’s position in ongoing legal proceedings.
Despite the legal constraints, Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, the then Registrar, began pushing for Ms. Gautam’s absorption “at all costs.” His insistence was both relentless and inappropriate. When the matter came before me, I clearly refused to violate statutory norms. Yet, Mr. Waraich continued to press the issue.
So unusual and aggressive was his pursuit that this very matter was incorporated into the charge sheet issued to him on June 13, 2018. The specific charge alleged that Mr. Waraich was canvassing Ms. Gautam’s absorption improperly and against the rules, defying both logic and senior authority.
Just four days after being charge-sheeted, on June 17, 2018, Ms. Gautam filed a complaint against me, clearly a retaliatory move aimed at shielding her ally, Mr. Waraich. The timing alone betrayed the motive. The very issue she raised—her absorption—was one of the grounds on which the Registrar was charged. Her complaint was not only retaliatory but fundamentally baseless and timed with precision to harass me and deflect attention from the Registrar’s misconduct.
To make matters worse, her complaint was filed despite being barred by limitation. The allegations were thus a transparent attempt to weaponize the legal and institutional grievance process to serve personal vendettas.
In Article 2 of the charge sheet against Mr. Waraich, it was clearly stated:
“He exhibited undue personal interest, motivation and unusual haste… even in defiance of the command of the superior authority.”
This was a direct reference to his actions in Ms. Gautam’s case. The Registrar was not merely advocating her absorption; he was openly defying the Director (me), recording harsh, inappropriate language in official noting, and even attempting to escalate the matter to the Chairman of the Board of Governors and the Ministry—well beyond his administrative purview.
This kind of insubordination and pressure was not only unbecoming of his post but also revealed an alarming personal investment in ensuring Ms. Gautam’s continued tenure, despite rules to the contrary.
When I sought official comments from the Assistant Registrar (Establishment) and the Section Officer (Administration) on the matter, the Registrar objected vociferously, questioning my authority to consult an officer junior to him. This defiance highlighted his determination to control the narrative and intimidate any dissenting voices, even if it meant interfering in standard administrative processes.
Even after I had officially turned down Ms. Gautam’s application, he continued to push for her case—again and again. His behaviour was not driven by protocol, but by something far more personal.
In 2017, Ms. Gautam raised an issue about the House Rent Allowance (HRA) not being released. This required scrutiny. Upon investigation, dues were released as per norms, and there was no irregularity in that regard. However, what stood out was a proposal mooted by Mr. Waraich to grant her HRA retrospectively from March 5, 2014, a financially substantial and highly irregular move.
Additionally, Ms. Gautam submitted incorrect information, claiming she had joined on March 5, 2015, instead of 2014. This discrepancy raised questions about the credibility of her documentation. More troubling was her consistent refusal to provide key information sought by the Competent Authority—eligibility for the post, age, relevant experience—essential details that she chose not to submit.
Despite this, Mr. Waraich strongly recommended her absorption again on December 19, 2017. But instead of capitulating, I ordered the advertisement of the position, inviting open competition and suggesting that Ms. Gautam could apply if eligible. This was a fair and transparent approach—rules-based, not person-based.
Ultimately, Ms. Gautam was relieved of her duties at NIPER on March 5, 2018. After the suspension of Mr. Waraich, and knowing her case had been cited in his chargesheet, she submitted a complaint against me. The sequence of events left little doubt that her complaint was an afterthought, born out of spite and designed to target me personally for refusing to bend rules in her favour.
She had been aware from day one that her deputation was for a fixed tenure and that no absorption was assured or even legally viable. The false and vexatious nature of her complaint was evident. Yet, despite the clear lack of substance and despite the eventual finding that no case was made out against me, the system failed to hold her accountable.
There was no punishment, no reprimand, not even symbolic costs imposed for her misuse of the process, false accusations, and malicious intent. This sets a disturbing precedent—where false complaints can be filed with impunity, and those who uphold rules face harassment, not protection.
This episode illustrates more than personal injustice—it exposes a systemic flaw. How can a system function fairly when those who misuse it are not penalized, and those who defend integrity are dragged through false allegations?
It is imperative that false complaints, especially those made with clear ulterior motives, be met with strict consequences. Otherwise, we risk turning institutions into battlegrounds of personal score-settling, where rules are bent, truth is twisted, and honest administrators are made scapegoats for doing the right thing.
