On June 13, 2018, Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally issued a charge sheet to Mr. PJP Singh Waraich. However, no inquiry was ever conducted regarding the charges. The charges listed in the sheet were only a glimpse of potential violations—had a formal inquiry been undertaken, much more could have been uncovered.
This part highlights intentional delays by the NIPER Mohali Registrar in filing written statements before the High Court, his support for the former Director in destabilizing Dr. Akkinepally, the non-recovery of wrongly fixed salary for former Director Dr. K.K. Bhutani, unauthorized advertisements for hiring the Security and Estate Officer, forgery of an order on committee formation, and failure to act on the Director’s directives. These actions resulted in significant financial and administrative setbacks for NIPER.
Deliberate Delay in Filing Court Statements
Mr. Waraich deliberately delayed filing written statements in key court cases. The unexplained delay—close to a year—was a serious act of negligence and a violation of conduct rules. When the Director attempted to intervene, Mr. Waraich resorted to excessive notings, letters, and communications, even questioning the Director’s authority in legal and administrative matters. This obstructionist approach undermined the legal standing of NIPER in crucial cases and led to unnecessary adjournments, weakening the Institute’s position in court proceedings.
Support for Former Officiating Director
Mr. Waraich actively aided former Officiating Director Dr. K.K. Bhutani, with whom he was named in a CBI FIR. During Dr. Bhutani’s tenure, Mr. Waraich was appointed. A crucial case (CWP No. 26785 of 2016) filed by Dr. Bhutani in the High Court sought reliefs affecting the selection of NIPER’s Director. On July 14, 2017, the court directed the respondents to submit objections regarding the Director selection process by August 16, 2017. However, no objections were filed, a serious lapse attributed to the Registrar’s negligence. Repeated adjournments followed due to continued non-filing, clearly indicating intentional delay to benefit Dr. Bhutani. The High Court warned that no further delays would be tolerated, but the Registrar persisted in his inaction, reflecting his vested interest in manipulating administrative processes to benefit the former officiating Director.
Financial Mismanagement and Unauthorized Approvals
The Department of Pharmaceuticals flagged incorrect salary fixation for Dr. Bhutani, recommending recovery of overpaid amounts. As the custodian of funds, the Registrar’s inaction caused financial losses to the Institute. Recognizing the apparent collusion, Dr. Akkinepally filed the required written statement on December 7, 2017, through NIPER’s legal panel. Learning of this, Mr. Waraich objected and issued a communication on May 16, 2018, demanding the Director explain how he appointed a counsel. This act was a clear case of insubordination and misconduct, attempting to undermine the Director’s authority while protecting the financial irregularities linked to the former officiating Director.
Attempts to Undermine the Director’s Authority
Dr. Akkinepally, as NIPER’s Principal Executive Officer, exercised his authority under Section 16 of the NIPER Act, while the Registrar, under Section 18, was accountable to him. However, Mr. Waraich openly challenged this hierarchy, issuing various communications to different authorities to counter the Director’s actions. He also selectively insisted on the Director replying to court matters in his own case while blocking similar actions in other cases. This selective application of rules further exposed his malafide intentions and deep-seated defiance of institutional protocols.
Unauthorized Recruitment and Forgery
On June 10, 2017, an advertisement (No. 071/17) for hiring a Security and Estate Officer was published without the Director’s approval. Despite Dr. Akkinepally assuming office weeks earlier, the matter was never brought to his attention. Mr. Waraich independently issued orders, processed recruitment advertisements, and handled employee representations, seeking approvals from the former officiating Director without full disclosure of the sub judice status. When questioned, he presented a false defense and failed to withdraw the advertisement despite clear instructions, indicating misconduct and record manipulation.
Furthermore, Mr. Waraich unilaterally undertook several key administrative actions, issuing orders for committee formations and employee representations without statutory authority. When challenged, he falsely claimed prior approval from the former officiating Director. Investigations revealed no such approvals existed in official records, proving that the Registrar had forged and manipulated documents. His repeated attempts to justify these actions by citing non-existent approvals reflect a pattern of willful deceit and manipulation of institutional records.
Defiance of Disciplinary Actions
Despite repeated instructions from the Director, Mr. Waraich deliberately delayed disciplinary proceedings against employees, including Mr. Kultar Singh Saini, who made defamatory remarks against NIPER. Instead of implementing directives, he obstructed actions and responded with counter-notings questioning the Director’s authority, creating administrative paralysis. His consistent defiance in disciplinary matters directly contributed to a decline in institutional discipline and accountability.
Gross Insubordination and Open Defiance
A striking example of defiance was when Mr. Waraich refused to implement the Director’s decision to appoint Dr. Prabha Garg as Chairman of the Computer Center Committee. Instead of complying, he issued counter-notings justifying non-implementation, directly challenging the Director’s authority. His resistance to clear directives, combined with his insistence on bypassing institutional protocols, exemplifies his pattern of insubordination and deliberate defiance.
Mr. Waraich’s actions—intentional delays, financial mismanagement, unauthorized recruitment, forgery, insubordination, and failure to act on directives—demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. His repeated defiance, manipulation of records, and deliberate efforts to undermine the Director compromised NIPER’s administration and governance. Despite the charge sheet against him, the lack of a formal inquiry allowed these issues to persist unchecked. His actions not only resulted in financial loss but also disrupted institutional integrity, eroding trust in NIPER’s administration. A thorough and impartial inquiry remains imperative to ensure accountability and uphold the principles of transparent governance in the Institute.
