(………Continued)
How “Mob-Lynching” Worked Against Dr. Neeraj Kumar
Dr. Neeraj Kumar was appointed as an Assistant Professor on ad-hoc basis on 14.07.2003 at NIPER Mohali. His services were later regularized for five years on contract, effective 29.07.2003, via order dated 22.07.2004. He successfully completed this term on 28.07.2008 and became entitled to consideration for a higher grade.
However, since the Selection Committee was not formed in time, Dr. Neeraj Kumar—along with others—was given a short extension as Assistant Professor until 31.01.2010. The Committee was finally constituted on 29.01.2009, and he was interviewed. But the Committee’s recommendations were not communicated immediately.
Objection to Improper Selection Committee
Dr. Neeraj objected that the Committee was not formed as per Clause 3.6 of the NIPER Statutes.
As per norms, a Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor must comprise:
- A Chairman who is an eminent scientist/academician/professional/technologist nominated by the Board
- One academician/scientist of repute nominated by the Board
- At least two external experts nominated by the Director
- The Director (ex officio)
However, two persons were added improperly:
- Prof. Saranjit Singh, then Dean
- Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal, then Head of the Department (Pharmaceutics)
Both had no statutory role in the Committee. Both were later central figures in the complaints and disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Neeraj.
Prof. Saranjit Singh, notably, is named in a CBI FIR and yet continued to function as Acting/Officiating Chairman of NIPER from time to time.
Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal was the same individual whose complaints eventually resulted in Dr. Neeraj’s charge sheet, inquiry and expulsion.
Despite objections, the representation of Dr. Neeraj was rejected, and both professors participated in the Committee in violation of the NIPER Act and Statutes.
Committee Still Recommended Promotion
Even with their presence, the Committee recommended the renewal of Dr. Neeraj’s contract for five years and further recommended his promotion to Associate Professor. There were 12 faculty members under consideration.
But when the Board of Governors met on 02.08.2011 (54th meeting), it implemented the recommendations for 10 faculty members, excluding only:
- Dr. Neeraj Kumar, and
- Dr. Parikshit Bansal
Both were later expelled.
Creation of a “Special Committee”
NIPER informed Dr. Neeraj that:
- The earlier Selection Committee’s recommendation for renewal and promotion would be reviewed by a Special Committee,
- Until then, his services would continue.
However, no reference was made to the genuine recommendation of the original Selection Committee made on 29.10.2009.
What Really Happened?
- Dr. Neeraj questioned the appointment of Registrar PJP Singh Waraich.
The Single Bench later struck down his appointment. - He (along with Dr. Parikshit Bansal) challenged the constitution of the Senate as being contrary to the NIPER Statutes.
The Court agreed.
The Senate was ordered to be reconstituted correctly.
On 10.11.2011, another complaint was filed by Dr. Neeraj alleging statutory violations in the Registrar’s appointment. This led to yet another writ petition (CWP 18789/2011), where the Court again held that the Senate’s constitution violated the NIPER Statute.
The Consequence: Removal from Service
This exposes a pattern at NIPER Mohali—
Whoever questioned illegality suffered termination.
Both Dr. Neeraj Kumar and Dr. Parikshit Bansal were removed from service soon after challenging:
- the Registrar’s illegal appointment, and
- The wrongful constitution of the Senate.
This is nothing short of “jungle raj” inside a premier national institute.
CBI FIR and Selective Disclosure
The High Court noted that a CBI FIR existed against officials of NIPER. However, NIPER did not inform the Court that the closure report in that FIR had not been accepted by the competent court—meaning the matter was still alive.
Para 21: High Court Again Points at Prof. Bansal
The Court observed that all disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Neeraj began only after the Selection Committee recommended his renewal and promotion. Importantly:
- Till the Selection Committee meeting on 29.10.2009, there was not a single complaint against him—
including from Prof. Bansal. - After the Committee recommended renewal and promotion, a series of complaints suddenly appeared between 2009–2010—
All authored by Prof. Arvind Kumar Bansal.
These complaints triggered the inquiry conducted by Mr. B. L. Jangira, who found all charges except Charge No. 4 as “proved”.
High Court’s View on Charges
Charge 1: “Insubordination”
This was based on an email dated 28.06.2011, where Dr. Neeraj expressed strong objections to the removal of an Associate Professor (Dr. Nilanjan Roy). The High Court noted:
- His comments stemmed from raising legitimate grievances.
- The action of NIPER itself was not lawful.
- Therefore, calling the officers’ actions “shameful” was contextual and could not justify removal.
This again reflects poorly on the judgment of Inquiry Officer Mr. Jangira.
Charge 2: No Complaint From Any Students
Para 26 of the order states:
- Dr. Neeraj was accused of denying Pharmaceutics PhD students the benefit of departmental courses PE-620 and PE-820.
- Not a single student lodged any complaint.
- No student appeared in the inquiry to support the charge.
Yet the Inquiry Officer still held the charge “proved”.
This again shows that the Inquiry Officer relied solely on the emails of Prof. Bansal, without verifying facts or examining affected students. (To be concluded in Part III)
