Complaint of Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal and Action Against Dr. Neeraj Kumar
(Continued) ……Para 27 of the Order:
Charge No. 5 once again pertained to unacceptable behaviour, insubordination, and vitiating the atmosphere of the department, allegedly resulting in the “destruction of academic ethics.” The entire basis of this charge was yet another complaint by Professor Arvind Kumar Bansal, Head of Department. The only material relied upon by NIPER was an email in which Dr. Neeraj Kumar had raised grievances against the institute.
At NIPER Mohali, if you raise legitimate grievances, the consequence appears to be termination.
No Complaint Turned into a Complaint — Student’s Affidavit Ignored
Article 3 of the statement of charges accused Dr. Neeraj Kumar of harassing a Scheduled Caste student, Mr. Prasad Pawar.
But the facts were stark:
- Mr. Pawar never made any complaint against Dr. Neeraj.
- He submitted an affidavit on 06.02.2012, categorically denying the allegation.
- He completed his Ph.D. under the supervision of Dr. Neeraj, and the thesis was duly accepted.
- In fact, Mr. Pawar filed CWP No. 25363 of 2014, making serious accusations—not against Dr. Neeraj, but against Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal.
Student Accused Dr. Bansal; Action Taken Against Dr. Neeraj
Para 29 of the Order:
The High Court records that Mr. Pawar explicitly stated that harassment by Dr. Bansal delayed his Ph.D. submission. The Court even extended his submission deadline on this ground.
His thesis was ultimately completed only under Dr. Neeraj Kumar’s supervision.
Yet despite:
- The student’s affidavit exonerating Dr. Neeraj
- The writ petition filed against Dr. Bansal
- The absence of any complaint by the student
…the Inquiry Officer still treated the charge as “proved” against Dr. Neeraj.
Conduct of the Inquiry Officer
The Inquiry Officer, Mr. B. L. Jangira, astonishingly:
- Failed to even identify the actual person against whom the complaint was filed
- Ignored the student’s affidavit
- Ignored the writ petition directly implicating Dr. Bansal
Such conduct is deeply questionable and raises doubts about the fairness and motive behind the inquiry.
Complaints Against Dr. Bansal — But Penalty on Dr. Neeraj
Para 31:
When the entire set of charges and evidence was examined holistically, the Court found the inquiry report and NIPER’s decision to impose a major penalty wholly unsustainable—lacking any legally viable basis.
Complaints by Dr. Bansal, Questionable Actions of NIPER, and the CBI FIR
Para 32:
The Court observed:
- Almost all complaints originated only after Dr. Neeraj questioned the actions of Dr. Bansal.
- Several actions of NIPER were found to violate the Statutes.
- The Senate was set aside.
- The complaints by Dr. Neeraj and Dr. Parikshit Bansal triggered a CBI probe, resulting in a CBI FIR.
Para 33 — Issues Highlighted by the High Court
- Selection Committee had 5 members, but 7 participated, violating the NIPER Statutes.
- Constitution of the Senate—challenged by Dr. Neeraj—was found invalid and reconstituted.
- No complaint existed against Dr. Neeraj until he made representations.
- The student’s complaint was actually against Dr. Bansal, yet the charge was framed against Dr. Neeraj.
- No student complained about PE-620/PE-820 courses; only Dr. Bansal made the allegation.
- Even without a complainant, the Inquiry Officer still held the charge “proved.”
The Court noted:
“The only basis to implicate the appellant was Dr. Bansal… supported only by Prof. Saranjeet Singh—both of whom were objected to by the appellant for inclusion in the Selection Committee.”
Major Penalty Where Even Minor Penalty Was Unwarranted
The Court observed that the email relied upon for Charges 1 and 5 was not serious enough even for a minor penalty, let alone dismissal.
It was clear that:
“Senior officers were enraged as Dr. Neeraj had acted as a whistle-blower.”
Findings of the Rapid Grievance Redressal Committee
The RGRC recommended:
- Implementing the 2009 expert committee’s recommendations
- Renewing Dr. Neeraj’s contract
- Promoting him to Associate Professor
- Recognising that charges were not proven
- Providing justice to restore fairness and faculty morale
But NIPER did the opposite.
RGRC Disbanded — Hostility and Suppression of Dissent
Para 36:
NIPER rejected RGRC’s recommendations, claiming “excess of authority” and even disbanded the committee.
The Court observed:
“Utter hostility… all sensible voices have been rudely crushed.”
NIPER Given a Chance to Correct — But Refused
Para 37:
The Court provided NIPER with repeated opportunities to review the matter fairly.
NIPER refused every time.
The Court finally had to intervene on the merits.
Questions Over Conduct of Senior Leadership
Para 38:
Without naming personal liability (since individuals weren’t impleaded), the Court said:
“Malice in law is apparent on record.”
The termination order issued by Director Dr. K. K. Bhutani (as passed earlier) and the modified punishment of compulsory retirement issued by Dr. V. M. Katoch (Appellate Authority and Chairman, BOG) were unsustainable.
Final Orders of the Division Bench
- Writ Petition (CWP 25971 of 2013) allowed
- Single Judge order dated 22.04.2015 set aside
- Order of compulsory retirement set aside
- Dr. Neeraj was reinstated forthwith as Assistant Professor
- His promotion to Associate Professor and later Professor to be considered by treating his service as continuous and uninterrupted
Cost of ₹10 Lakh Imposed on NIPER Mohali
The Court imposed ₹10 lakh on NIPER for harassment and victimization spanning nearly a decade.
NIPER is free to recover the amount from the responsible officers.
The Court also placed on record its appreciation for Senior Advocate D. S. Patwalia (Amicus Curiae) and Advocate SheharNavjeet Singh.
A System That Failed a Researcher
Who compensates for the lost years of a researcher’s life?
What scientific productivity can one expect when genuine scholars are targeted, and wrongdoers flourish?
The CBI FIR filed in 2016 remains unresolved—over 80 adjournments, a closure report not accepted, and no accountability.
For a premier institute like NIPER Mohali, this saga reflects a deep institutional rot.
One hopes that someone finally:
- Reads the High Court order
- Fixes responsibility
- Initiates action against
- Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal
- Dr. Saranjeet Singh
- Registrar PJP Singh Waraich
- Dr. V. M. Katoch (as BOG Chair)
- Others on the Board who ignored the Court directions
NIPER Mohali has approached the Supreme Court against the Division Court Order that directed for joining of Dr. Neeraj Kumar. The status of the Special Leave Petition in the Apex court shows that it is under Defect.
In the meantime, Dr. Neeraj Kumar approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Contempt Petition. In this Contempt Petition, the High Court has directed the NIPER Director to file the Compliance Report on or before 15.12.2025.
The damage done to Dr. Neeraj Kumar—and to the integrity of the institution—is enormous and unforgivable. (Concluded)
