High Court Reinstates Dr. Neeraj Kumar, Exposes Deep Rot in NIPER Mohali
The reinstatement of Dr. Neeraj Kumar by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid bare the systemic rot festering within NIPER Mohali. The Division Bench not only ruled that his expulsion was unlawful and based on frivolous charges, but also directed the Institute to pay ₹10 lakh compensation to him.
This raises a critical question: Who will bear this penalty?
If public money is used to pay for the wrongful actions of individual administrators, that itself becomes yet another wrong.
Who Are the Individuals Flagged by the High Court (LPA-1067-2015 & LPA-1981-2016, decided November 6, 2025)?
- Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal – Former Dean and former Head, Dept. of Pharmaceutics
- Prof. Saranjit Singh – Former Professor and Head, Dept. of Pharmaceutical Analysis
- Members of the recently concluded Board, including:
o Dr. Dulal Panda, Director, NIPER Mohali
o Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal
o Others
- Mr. P. J. P. Singh Waraich, Registrar
What the 20-page High Court Order Said
A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed:
“The impugned action of NIPER has caused injustice to the appellant.”
Out of the five charges that formed the basis of compulsory retirement, the Court found that only one “substantial” charge—that of harassing an SC student—had any weight. Even that collapsed, because:
- The SC student explicitly stated he had no grievance against Dr. Neeraj Kumar.
- The same student completed his PhD under him.
- The student had actually filed a writ petition against the Head of the Department, not against Dr. Neeraj.
- The same HOD (Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal) was also the complainant for the other four charges.
In other words, the primary complainant was the very person against whom the SC student had levelled grievances, yet Dr. Neeraj Kumar was targeted.
The inquiry officer who held Dr. Neeraj guilty stands thoroughly discredited by the Court’s findings.
The Role of Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal
It was Prof. Bansal who submitted complaints against Dr. Neeraj Kumar, which were used to expel him.
With the Court now exposing the baselessness of those charges, the question of accountability becomes unavoidable.
If justice is to be served, then action must be taken against those who destroyed a faculty member’s career. Many believe that Prof. Bansal should face removal and financial penalties, including cuts to pension and salary, for causing this long-standing injustice.
Court Proceedings Leading to the Final Verdict
Order dated 19.09.2025
- The Court noted that the SC student’s grievances were against Prof. Bansal, not Dr. Neeraj.
- NIPER’s counsel informed the Court that the Institute was willing to “reconsider” the matter.
- Importantly, Director Dr. Dulal Panda acted as the Officiating Chairman of the Board, which was to take up the case.
- Prof. Bansal, who was also a Board member, was asked to recuse.
Order dated 28.10.2025
- NIPER’s lawyer sought an adjournment, informing the Court that the Board had discussed the matter but taken no decision.
- The Amicus Curiae pointed out that NIPER had already been given sufficient time.
- The Court was told another Board meeting was scheduled for October 30, 2025.
- What was not disclosed was that the Board’s tenure was about to end, making a genuine reconsideration impossible.
Board Meeting – October 30, 2025
The Board conveyed to the Court that no interference was required with previous decisions.
This raises a crucial question:
Was the Board of Governors complicit in perpetuating the injustice?
The Board met twice to “reconsider” the case but failed to revisit the flawed decisions of the earlier Board headed by Dr. V. M. Katoch.
Composition of the Board
- Dr. Dulal Panda (Director & Acting Chairman after Dr. Girish Sahni’s demise)
- Joint Secretary, Dept. of Pharmaceuticals
- Secretary, Technical Education, Govt. of Punjab
- Representative of DCGI
- Dr. Meenakshi Sharma, ICMR
- Prof. Bikash Medhi, PGIMER
- Dr. R. S. Verma, Director, MNNIT
- Mr. T. Rajamannar, Sun Pharma Advanced Research
- Mr. Rajesh Jain, MD, Panacea Biotec
- Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal
- Prof. Ipsita Roy
Crucially, Prof. Bansal—whose role lies at the heart of the misconduct—was a member of the very Board tasked with reconsidering the case, even though he was asked to recuse. The conflict of interest is glaring.
Charge Sheet and Inquiry Report
- Charge Sheet: 16.11.2011
- Inquiry Report: 28.01.2023
(To be concluded in Part II)
