What happens when those entrusted with upholding institutional ethics turn the rules upside down to protect their own? That is exactly what unfolded at the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, under the chairmanship of Dr. V. M. Katoch, aided by Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals.
I was the Director of NIPER when I had to take action against the institute’s registrar for proven misconduct. But instead of supporting due process, Dr. Katoch and his allies worked overtime to shield the registrar — and to silence me. Their actions forced me to seek judicial intervention.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, after examining the facts, granted an interim stay on the suspension order issued against me by Dr. Katoch. Later, through its order dated May 13, 2019, the court made the stay absolute, affirming that my removal had no legal basis.
But even as the case was pending before the Single Bench, Dr. Katoch and Mr. Tingal filed two Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) — LPA No. 1913 of 2018 on behalf of the Union of India, and LPA No. 1911 of 2018 on behalf of the Board of Governors of NIPER — challenging the interim stay. These were filed without the Board’s approval and in clear violation of procedure.
The irony is striking. At the 73rd meeting of the Board of Governors, it had been explicitly decided that, if required, the matter would be taken to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Chairman quietly approached the Division Bench of the High Court, bypassing both the Single Bench and the Board’s decision.
To make matters worse, no Board resolution or financial sanction existed for hiring a lawyer or spending public money. It was, by all accounts, a unilateral decision by Dr. Katoch. He later tried to cover his tracks by emailing BoG members, asking for their “opinion” on whether to move the Supreme Court — a move that revealed the lack of prior approval for the LPAs.
The Division Bench saw through this and promptly dismissed both appeals, directing the Chairman to go back to the Single Bench. The Bench also clarified an important principle — that a director approaching the court cannot be accused of misconduct.
This episode exposed a pattern of personal vendetta disguised as institutional discipline. What’s more, the lawyer hired by Dr. Katoch to represent the Board was the same person defending the suspended registrar — the very individual whose reinstatement these actions sought to secure.
Even members of the Board were alarmed. Prof. Ashwini Kumar Nangia, Director of the National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), Pune, dissociated himself from these actions in an email dated October 30, 2018. He wrote:
“As the Department has not been made a respondent in the court case, it has been decided that the Bog be advised to challenge the stay on suspension of Prof. Rao at the Apex Court. I hold the opposite view. It is the Department that should be initiating these proceedings, not the BoG. I wish to exclude myself as a BoG member in all legal proceedings.”
Prof. Nangia’s dissent underscored what many others sensed but dared not voice — that the Chairman was misusing his authority, and the rest of the Board, barring a few, remained complicit through silence.
The conflict of interest was glaring. By engaging the same lawyer who represented the registrar, Dr. Katoch blurred the line between institutional and personal motives. Public funds — close to ₹8.8 lakh — were spent to pursue these unauthorized legal adventures. The Department of Pharmaceuticals likely incurred additional expenses, meaning taxpayers footed the bill for what was essentially a personal vendetta.
Timing, too, betrayed intent. The LPAs were filed just two days before the pending hearing before the Single Bench on December 14, 2018. The Division Bench heard the matter on December 11 and dismissed it outright. Why the sudden rush? Because a Board meeting was scheduled for December 20, where the reinstatement of the suspended registrar was on the agenda. The goal was simple: remove me before that meeting so they could bring back the registrar without resistance.
When I refused to yield, the machinery moved to discredit and oust me. Even the so-called “fact-finding committee” later set up had one aim — to justify my removal and sanitize the registrar’s return.
Some Board members did not stay silent. Dr. M. R. Doreswamy, Chancellor of PES University and BoG member, wrote to Dr. Katoch after the 73rd meeting, saying:
“A Chairman of BoG is expected to be above board and should not give an impression, even remotely, that he has some bias. Here, I could see that you have a soft corner for the Registrar (who carries criminal charges), but due respect to the Director was not extended by you. I am sorry to say this.”
That letter summed up what many in the system privately acknowledged — that the Chairman had lost the moral and legal ground to lead.
The High Court, in another related case, went on record stating that the Board itself was not constituted in accordance with the NIPER Act, and that meetings were being held without quorum — a stunning revelation that further delegitimized its decisions.
This entire episode raises serious questions that the system must confront:
- Who authorized Dr. V. M. Katoch and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal to approach the Division Bench when the Board had resolved to move the Supreme Court?
- Who approved the use of public money for private legal battles?
- Why was the same lawyer engaged for both the registrar and the Board?
- And why has no effort been made to recover the ₹8.8 lakh squandered on these unauthorized LPAs?
Above all, will anyone in authority hold Dr. Katoch and Mr. Tingal accountable for these acts of institutional sabotage?
Two respected voices — Prof. Nangia and Dr. Doreswamy — saw through the manipulation and spoke up. Their dissent stands as a reminder that silence in the face of abuse is complicity.
For institutions like NIPER, which are meant to symbolize excellence and integrity, such misuse of power is a deep betrayal. It is time to stop looking away — and start asking hard questions of those who believed they could twist the rules without consequence.
