Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally issued a chargesheet to Mr. PJP Singh Waraich on June 13, 2018, but no inquiry was ever conducted. Part III covers the unauthorized advertisement for hiring a Security and Estate Officer, forging an order on committee formation, and failure to follow the Director’s instructions.
The Security cum Estate Officer (SEO) post was vacant due to an ongoing court case. Capt. Kshitij Sharma was expelled as SEO, and his case was still pending. By advertising and filling the post, Mr. Waraich sought to weaken Sharma’s case by creating a new claim to the position. He secured approval from the Director (Additional Charge) during a transition period, deliberately avoiding the incoming regular Director, Dr. Akkinepally. Despite knowing that Dr. Akkinepally’s appointment was imminent, Mr. Waraich proceeded with the advertisement and related actions without informing him.
An advertisement (No. 071/17) was published on June 10, 2017, after Dr. Akkinepally had joined. However, the Registrar never informed him. Mr. Waraich independently issued orders, advertised the recruitment, handled employee representations, and sought approvals from the previous officiating Director. The authenticity of these approvals remains questionable and could have been verified through an inquiry, which was never conducted. When confronted, Mr. Waraich provided misleading explanations and refused to withdraw the advertisement despite clear instructions. His continued actions demonstrate a pattern of insubordination and deliberate attempts to bypass institutional protocols.
Mr. Waraich repeatedly made key administrative decisions without proper authority. He issued orders for committee formation, addressed employee grievances, and falsely claimed to have obtained approval from the former officiating Director. No such approval was found in the records, suggesting forgery and manipulation. By acting independently on critical matters without the necessary permissions, Mr. Waraich overstepped his authority and compromised institutional integrity. This lack of accountability in a leadership role reflects a serious governance issue within NIPER Mohali.
In a related case, ex-employee Dr. Neeraj Kumar filed a writ petition alleging that Mr. Waraich submitted misleading information to remove him from his post as Assistant Professor, which misled the Punjab and Haryana High Court. If proven, this would reinforce the charges of document falsification and record manipulation against Mr. Waraich. The legal implications of such actions are severe, as providing incorrect information to the court can be considered perjury. This case adds another layer of evidence against the Registrar’s history of administrative misconduct.
On May 24, 2017, Mr. Waraich falsely claimed that a committee had been constituted based on recommendations from a three-member team of senior professors and approved by Prof. USN Murthy, then Director of NIPER Guwahati. However, official records showed no such approval, indicating that Mr. Waraich had forged the order. The three-member committee included Dr. Saranjit Singh, Dr. U. C. Banerjee, and Dr. Asit K. Chakraborti. Notably, Dr. Saranjit Singh had been named in a CBI FIR, while Dr. Banerjee had faced plagiarism allegations and had a Tata Innovation Award withdrawn. The inclusion of such individuals in an unofficial and unapproved decision-making body raises further questions about Mr. Waraich’s motivations and the legitimacy of his actions.
Additionally, Mr. Waraich repeatedly disobeyed the Director’s written instructions. In one instance, Dr. Akkinepally designated Dr. Prabha Garg as Chairman of the Computer Center Committee to prevent a conflict of interest. However, Mr. Waraich resisted this directive, advocating for Mr. Rajwinder Singh, whom he had promoted within NIPER Mohali. Mr. Waraich’s resistance appeared to be an attempt to influence procurement decisions related to the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. The ERP system was crucial for automating and streamlining administrative processes, yet Mr. Waraich sought to ensure that Mr. Rajwinder Singh retained control over all computer and software purchases. This not only undermined transparency but also suggested the potential for financial mismanagement or favoritism in procurement practices.
Moreover, Mr. Waraich’s pattern of insubordination extended beyond this case. He frequently issued orders without proper authorization, manipulated official records, and delayed implementing decisions that did not align with his interests. In multiple instances, he failed to follow the due process established by the Institute’s regulations. His ability to bypass established governance structures suggests either systemic administrative failures at NIPER Mohali or a deliberate attempt to consolidate power and exert undue influence over institutional affairs.
Despite multiple directives, Mr. Waraich continued to undermine authority, manipulate processes, and evade accountability. His actions, if properly investigated, could substantiate serious charges of misconduct, forgery, and insubordination. The lack of an inquiry into these matters raises concerns about the enforcement of institutional discipline and the willingness of higher authorities to address such blatant violations. If these allegations are left unchecked, they may set a dangerous precedent for administrative malpractice at NIPER Mohali and similar institutions.
The significance of these allegations cannot be overstated. Educational institutions are expected to uphold high ethical standards, particularly when it comes to administrative transparency and accountability. The continued inaction regarding Mr. Waraich’s case not only damages the credibility of NIPER Mohali but also raises doubts about the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms within the institution. For justice and institutional integrity to prevail, a thorough and impartial inquiry must be conducted into the allegations against Mr. Waraich. If the charges are proven, appropriate disciplinary action should follow to restore confidence in the institution’s governance.
