When I took charge as Director of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, in 2017, I knew the institution was facing challenges. What I did not anticipate was the depth of irregularities and contradictions that would emerge in the handling of vigilance clearance cases within the Institute.
One of the earliest files I came across pertained to the release of retirement dues of Dr. K. K. Bhutani, the former Officiating Director of NIPER Mohali. The matter was anything but routine—it was entangled with a CBI investigation and conflicting decisions by ministry officials that exposed glaring double standards in the governance of the Institute.
On 13 December 2016, Mr. Satish Kumar, then Under Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, wrote a note that fundamentally shaped the matter. He referred to a CBI case—RCCHG2016A005 dated 14 January 2016—registered against Dr. P. Rama Rao, then Director of NIPER Mohali, along with others, for alleged corruption and illegal appointments in the Institute.
From the very subject line, it was evident that officials in the Department were fully aware of these allegations and the ongoing investigation. Citing the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines (O.M. No. 11012/11/2007-Estt. A dated 21 June 2016), Mr. Kumar specifically invoked clause 2(c)(ix), which states that vigilance clearance shall be withheld if an officer is involved in a trap/raid on charges of corruption and the investigation is pending.
On that basis, Mr. Kumar made it clear that since Dr. Bhutani’s name appeared in the CBI case, his vigilance clearance could not be granted. As he was due to retire on 31 December 2016, the Department instructed that his retirement benefits must not be released until further orders. The Institute was asked to immediately intimate the Department of the action taken in this regard.
The Ministry’s position in Dr. Bhutani’s case was categorical: no vigilance clearance, no dues. Yet, astonishingly, the same principle was not applied to others named in the very same CBI case.
For instance, despite being named in the FIR, Mr. P. J. P. Singh Waraich was allowed to continue not only as the Registrar of NIPER Mohali but also as its Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO). This was nothing short of absurd—the very individual under CBI investigation was entrusted with overseeing vigilance matters of the Institute and reporting alleged irregularities of other employees to the Ministry. It was only after my intervention that he was finally stripped of his CVO powers. Until then, this was the height of impropriety.
If vigilance clearance was a prerequisite for retirement benefits in Dr. Bhutani’s case, how could the same officials justify allowing Mr. Waraich to perform statutory duties as Registrar, let alone serve as the CVO?
It is not that the Ministry was unaware. Senior officials such as Dr. V. M. Katoch and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal were fully cognizant of the correspondence regarding the denial of vigilance clearance to Dr. Bhutani. Yet, when it came to the Registrar—whose name also appears in the same CBI FIR—the Ministry turned a blind eye.
The CBI case continues to linger. No closure has been accepted by the competent court, and a protest petition is still pending. Nevertheless, Ministry officials never objected to the continuation or even the reappointment of the Registrar. They also failed to disclose the true status of the CBI case, thereby enabling him to occupy the statutory post under the NIPER Act and Statutes.
The contrast is striking. On the one hand, retirement dues of an ex-Director were blocked because of his inclusion in the FIR. On the other hand, the Registrar, similarly implicated, was allowed to draw full benefits of office, discharge statutory functions, and even return to the role after a gap.
Even more troubling is the fact that two years after I was appointed Director, the very same Ministry officials raised objections to my vigilance clearance. Their objections were not based on any CBI case against me, but simply because I had highlighted irregularities—illegal practices, misuse of Institute funds, and diversions of resources. When I pointed out these anomalies, they attempted to undermine me by questioning my own clearance, while continuing to shield the Registrar despite his pending case.
This raises a fundamental question: Is vigilance clearance not mandatory for someone serving as Registrar of NIPER, a statutory position under the Act? How can a person perform such duties when their name figures in a pending CBI FIR and the matter has not been disposed of by the courts?
The Department’s double standards are evident. They applied the rule strictly in one case to deny retirement benefits, but conveniently ignored it in another, allowing an implicated official to function without interruption. Worse, when I acted against irregularities, they turned the same vigilance clearance argument against me.
The vigilance clearance issue at NIPER Mohali is not just about one or two individuals; it is about the credibility of governance and accountability in public institutions. Selective application of rules, shielding of compromised officials, and targeting of those who expose irregularities only erode the integrity of the system.
The lingering CBI case, the silence of Ministry officials, and their contradictory actions raise troubling questions. Until such double standards are addressed, the credibility of both the Institute and the Ministry will remain under a cloud.
