I, Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally, took action against Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, then Registrar of NIPER Mohali, for various acts of omission and commission. Following due process, Mr. Waraich was suspended. However, within a few hours, Dr. V.M. Katoch, then Chairman of the Board of Governors, unilaterally revoked the suspension.
This hasty move followed my emails to all Board members, exposing Dr. Katoch’s involvement in certain questionable decisions. Importantly, under the NIPER Act, 1998, the authority to suspend and discipline employees lies with the Director, not the Chairman. The Chairman’s role is limited to acting as an appellate authority only after a punishment is imposed.
I clearly informed the Board and Dr. Katoch that revoking the suspension was beyond his powers. Yet, Dr. Katoch, fearing that a formal inquiry would uncover further irregularities, chose to annul the suspension to “nip it in the bud.”
Faced with this blatant overreach, I had no choice but to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. I was not acting outside my jurisdiction — I simply exercised powers granted to the Director under the NIPER Act and Statutes, a legal framework established by Parliament.
Following the procedure, I engaged a lawyer from the NIPER-approved panel (which had been constituted before my tenure) without altering the panel in any way. It is standard practice for an empaneled lawyer to engage additional counsel if needed, which was also adhered to.
The objective of filing the case was simple: to seek judicial clarification on whether my actions were within my lawful powers and whether Dr. Katoch’s intervention was legitimate.
Shockingly, Dr. Katoch retaliated by engaging Mr. Rohit Ahuja, the same lawyer previously representing the suspended Registrar, Mr. Waraich. On July 10, 2018, Dr. Katoch, acting as Chairman, signed the Vakalatnama in Mr. Ahuja’s favor — a clear conflict of interest.
Under NIPER rules, only the Registrar, under the Director’s instructions, is authorized to initiate or sign legal documents on behalf of the Institute. Yet, Dr. Katoch bypassed this procedure and appointed a private lawyer who was neither approved by NIPER nor authorized by its governing regulations.
Subsequently, a hefty bill of ₹8,80,000 was raised by Mr. Ahuja, split across two tranches. Astonishingly, officials from the Department of Pharmaceuticals (notably under Mr. Rajneesh Tingal) repeatedly pressured NIPER to release payment to this unauthorized lawyer.
This was not only procedurally incorrect but also outright illegal because:
- Only the Registrar, under the Director’s instruction, can sign legal documents.
- Mr. Ahuja was not on the approved NIPER legal panel.
- Mr. Ahuja had a clear conflict of interest, having already represented the suspended Registrar.
Despite these violations, officials from the Department and certain Board members kept questioning the legitimate payment made to the lawyer from the NIPER panel (engaged by me), while actively pushing for payment to Dr. Katoch’s private appointee.
It’s important to note that the Vakalatnama issued by the NIPER-empaneled lawyer explicitly authorized the engagement of additional counsel if necessary, in accordance with established legal practices. Yet, the same standard was conveniently ignored when Dr. Katoch’s actions were scrutinized.
Ultimately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals, instead of upholding the law, acted vindictively against me and my team, penalizing those who were discharging their official duties in good faith. Meanwhile, they sanctioned the illegal payment of ₹8,80,000 to a lawyer unlawfully engaged by Dr. Katoch, flouting all existing NIPER norms.
This chain of events raises a fundamental question: when the rules and statutes of an institution are selectively applied, how can fairness and accountability prevail?
