The appointment and selection of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich as Registrar of NIPER Mohali were quashed within months by a Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, he continued in the position based on a stay granted by the Division Bench. During his tenure, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR that included his name, yet he continued to act as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the institute. This raised serious concerns regarding governance, conflict of interest, and the handling of institutional policies at NIPER Mohali.
Records accessed by Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally during his tenure as Director, NIPER Mohali, revealed critical communications related to the appointment of a CVO. A letter dated 26.11.2012 from Mr. A.K. Karn, Under Secretary, Government of India, highlighted that the appointment of a full-time CVO at NIPER was under discussion with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The CVC had advised that a panel of officers be formed for appointing a part-time CVO. Alternatively, if a full-time CVO was required, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) needed to be approached for an external appointment.
Despite these clear directives from the CVC, the Board of Governors (BoG) of NIPER Mohali, in its 59th meeting on 23.03.2013, resolved that the Registrar would continue to act as the CVO and perform all related responsibilities. This decision was later communicated to the Ministry via letter no. F.21/VIG/99/457 dated 03.06.2013 by Mr. Hardeep Singh, Section Officer (Administration). This move effectively placed Mr. Waraich in charge of vigilance functions, despite his appointment as Registrar being legally challenged in court and his name being included in a CBI FIR.
Minutes of the BoG meeting revealed that the Board entrusted Mr. Waraich with examining complaints, including those against himself. This was an unprecedented decision and completely disregarded the CVC’s recommendations. The appointment of Mr. Waraich as both Registrar and CVO led to a fundamental conflict of interest, as he controlled multiple crucial institutional functions, including Finance, Accounts, Purchase, Security, and Audit. Almost all employees, except faculty, reported to him directly. Under such circumstances, any complaints about these departments would be handled by Mr. Waraich himself in his capacity as CVO, making impartial investigation impossible.
In governance structures, it is widely recognized that those holding executive functions should not be assigned vigilance duties. However, the BoG under the chairmanship of Dr. V.M. Katoch failed to acknowledge this critical issue. By ignoring the CVC’s advice and permitting Mr. Waraich to function as both Registrar and CVO, the BoG not only compromised institutional integrity but also allowed the possibility of biased decision-making in handling complaints and irregularities within NIPER Mohali.
Recognizing the potential conflict of interest and the need for an independent vigilance officer, the CBI formally addressed a letter to Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, requesting the removal of Mr. Waraich or his transfer to another institute to facilitate a fair inquiry. A copy of this letter was also sent to Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally, who raised the issue in a BoG meeting. However, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, then Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals, resisted discussing the matter in the meeting, asserting that since the letter was addressed to him, he would handle it personally.
This resistance led to growing tensions between Dr. Rao and a powerful trio consisting of Dr. V.M. Katoch (BoG Chairman), Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, and Mr. Waraich. Despite the seriousness of the CBI’s request, Dr. Katoch defended Mr. Waraich and refused to remove him from his position as Registrar. In a minimal concession, the BoG agreed to relieve him of his duties as CVO. However, this decision fell far short of the CBI’s demand, which explicitly called for his transfer to a non-sensitive post or relocation outside NIPER Mohali. By allowing him to remain as Registrar, the Board ensured that he continued to exert influence over key administrative matters.
Further scrutiny of institutional records demonstrated that Mr. Waraich’s influence extended across multiple statutory committees at NIPER Mohali. As Registrar, he was an ex-officio Secretary of critical governing bodies, including the Board of Governors, the Senate, the Finance Committee, and the Building and Works Committee. This meant that even after stepping down as CVO, he retained significant control over decision-making processes within the institute.
Moreover, his authority over departments such as Finance, Accounts, Purchase, and Security meant that complaints or allegations of mismanagement within these sections would still ultimately be funneled through him. The inherent conflict of interest remained unresolved, as he continued to wield executive power over operations that were directly linked to vigilance matters.
Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally, during his tenure as Director, pointed out that the BoG, under Dr. Katoch’s leadership, had blatantly ignored the recommendations of the CVC. The CVC had explicitly recommended appointing an external, independent officer to the role of CVO. However, the BoG had instead chosen to consolidate power by allowing an individual already under scrutiny to oversee vigilance functions.
The case of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich at NIPER Mohali highlights systemic lapses in governance and institutional accountability. Despite his selection as Registrar being quashed by the Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, he managed to remain in office due to a stay granted by the Division Bench. Even after his name appeared in a CBI FIR, he continued to function as CVO, examining complaints—including those against himself. The BoG’s decision to allow him to hold both roles, despite clear directives from the CVC, represents a serious breach of institutional ethics.
Even when the CBI intervened and sought his removal or transfer, resistance from key officials, including the BoG Chairman and the Joint Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, ensured that Mr. Waraich remained in a position of power. The entire episode raises critical concerns about governance, transparency, and the ability of institutional mechanisms to function independently. By allowing such conflicts of interest to persist, NIPER Mohali’s leadership effectively undermined the very principles of vigilance and accountability that institutions of higher learning are expected to uphold.
