When I assumed charge as the Director of NIPER Mohali, I was taken aback by the manner in which the minutes of the Board of Governors (BoG) meetings were recorded and, more importantly, how critical decisions were actually taken and later altered.
A Table Agenda Item No. 67.T1 titled “Charge of Director, NIPER S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali)” was taken up in the 67th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 27 December 2016. Before this meeting, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (Department of Pharmaceuticals), vide letter No. 51021/25/2009-NIPER (Vol.-II) dated 09.12.2016, had directed the Institute to forward a list of senior faculty members of NIPER Mohali against whom no CBI case or departmental proceedings were pending, for consideration for appointment as Officiating Director upon the superannuation of Dr. K. K. Bhutani.
In compliance, the Institute forwarded the required information through letter No. NIPER/RGO/DOP/2016/4662 dated 09.12.2016, along with specific remarks against each name.
During the BoG meeting, chaired by Dr. V. M. Katoch, it was recalled that in the previous 66th BoG meeting held on 1 November 2016, the Board had unanimously resolved—following established precedent—that the charge of Director should be handed over to the senior-most faculty member of the Institute after 30 December 2016.
Subsequently, the Board deliberated whether the charge of Director could be handed over to a person whose name appeared in an FIR registered by the CBI. The Board sought clarification from the Secretary of the Board of Governors, who was also the Registrar of the Institute, Mr. PJP Singh Waraich—himself a named accused in the same CBI FIR—on whether a charge sheet had been filed.
Mr. Waraich informed the Board that although FIR No. CBI RCCHG2016A005 dated 14.01.2016 had been registered against Dr. P. Rama Rao (then Director, NIPER Mohali) and others, including Dr. Saranjit Singh, the senior-most Professor of the Institute, no charge sheet had been filed to the best of his knowledge. He further stated that the residences and offices of all persons named in the FIR had been raided on 12.02.2016.
One of the Board members then inquired whether any guidelines or policy existed on the issue. In response, the Secretary brought to the notice of the Board a recent communication from the Department of Personnel and Training, which stated that vigilance clearance should be withheld if “the officer is involved in a trap/raid on charges of corruption and investigation is pending.”
The minutes recorded that one of the BoG members emphasized paragraph 2 of the Ministry’s letter dated 09.12.2016, which clearly stated:
“You are, therefore, requested to send a list of Senior Faculty members of NIPER, Mohali, against whom no CBI case/Departmental Proceedings is pending, for consideration in the Department to appoint an Officiating Director of NIPER Mohali onthe superannuation of Dr. K. K. Bhutani.”
This member opined that since the Ministry had already initiated the process for appointing an Officiating Director, the Board should refrain from making any recommendation. Notably, the minutes did not disclose the name of this Board member. Furthermore, the related communication was exchanged between the Registrar and Dr. V. M. Katoch, although the email ID used was not that of Dr. Katoch.
The Secretary of the Board, in his dual role as Registrar, asserted that under the provisions of the NIPER Act, 1998, the Board of Governors was the appointing authority and, therefore, competent to make interim arrangements.
The Institute had already forwarded a seniority list of faculty to the Department of Pharmaceuticals. Since Dr. K. K. Bhutani himself was the Officiating Director and due to superannuation on 30.12.2016, it is highly improbable that he would have included his own name in the list. Hence, it is evident that the list—with remarks—was forwarded by the Registrar’s office.
The manner in which this list was structured is revealing:
- Serial No. 1: Dr. Saranjit Singh — noted as being named in a CBI FIR.
- Serial No. 2: Dr. U. C. Banerjee — noted as facing plagiarism charges.
- Serial Nos. 3 to 5 (including Serial Nos. 1 and 2): It was remarked that all senior professors were above 60 years of age, and that the Department of Pharmaceuticals had not accepted their continuation in service beyond that age (the matter being sub judice).
- Serial No. 6: Dr. P. V. Bharatam, then Dean, against whom no adverse remarks were recorded.
The Board of Governors, under the chairmanship of Dr. V. M. Katoch, stated that it considered the practical implications of ensuring the smooth functioning of the Institute until the appointment of a regular Director, for which the selection process was already underway.
After what was described as “threadbare deliberations,” the Board decided to hand over the charge of Officiating Director to Dr. P. V. Bharatam, effective 30 December 2016.
However, a critical alteration was later made by Dr. V. M. Katoch in his capacity as Chairman of the Board. In paragraph 4 of the minutes, the concluding sentence states:
“Thus, there is no hindrance in giving charge to Prof. Saranjit Singh, the senior-most faculty” was deleted and replaced with:
“However, clause ix of the guidelines indicates that vigilance clearance cannot be given when investigation is pending in a corruption case.”
After taking over as Director, I found it impossible to reconcile these contradictory positions taken by Dr. Katoch. He was fully aware that Mr. PJP Singh Waraich was a named accused in the same CBI FIR, yet he had no hesitation in retaining him as Registrar and Secretary of the Board—a statutory position. At the same time, Dr. Katoch was unwilling to grant even temporary charge of Director to Dr. Saranjit Singh, despite both individuals being similarly placed in the FIR.
Further, if Dr. Katoch and the Registrar were aware of plagiarism charges against Dr. U. C. Banerjee, the absence of any action against him clearly suggests that the wrongdoing was known but consciously ignored, thereby shielding the individual concerned.
By sidelining all senior professors, the charge of the Officiating Director was handed over to a person who himself was a candidate for the post of regular Director. Dr. P. V. Bharatam subsequently appeared for the selection of Director.
During my tenure, I faced suspension twice and was eventually removed from the post of Director, NIPER Mohali. Ironically, Dr. Saranjit Singh was repeatedly entrusted with the charge of Acting Director during periods when the Officiating Director was absent, without any objection raised about his being named in a CBI FIR. Dr. Saranjit Singh and Dr. U. C. Banerjee also served together on a three-member committee, yet the same Board and the same Chairman did not raise concerns about FIR involvement or plagiarism allegations at that time.
Adding to the gravity of the matter, two senior officials from the Department of Pharmaceuticals—the Joint Secretary and the Financial Advisor—were members of the Board of Governors. The Department was receiving information from a person named in a CBI FIR, while simultaneously taking the position that another person named in the same FIR should not be allowed to take charge as Officiating Director.
Mr. Rajneesh Tingal and other Department representatives were comfortable allowing a named accused to continue permanently as Registrar, a statutory post. They were equally comfortable permitting the same individuals—Dr. Saranjit Singh and Dr. U. C. Banerjee—to function as Acting Directors or committee members. Mr. Tingal also raised no objection when Dr. SJS Flora was appointed Director of NIPER Raebareli, despite being declared ineligible for the post of Director, NIPER Mohali, even though both institutions are governed by the NIPER Act, 1998.
Perhaps my only fault was that I openly challenged Dr. Katoch and Mr. Tingal on these contradictions and inconsistencies, and stated plainly what needed to be said:
Practice what you preach—or change your speech.
