When Rules Are Bent and Justice Evaded
In the murky corridors of NIPER Mohali, where academic brilliance should have reigned supreme, a quiet scandal is brewing—one that lays bare the systemic abuse of power, the manipulation of institutional processes, and a brazen disregard for merit and ethics.
At the heart of this scandal is the dubious regularisation of services of several individuals, most notably Prof. U.C. Banerjee—a figure mired in controversy over plagiarism, paper retractions, and questionable ethics. Ironically, while individuals with serious charges against them were rewarded with regularisation, others like Dr. Animesh Roy, who had not applied for it were quietly slipped through the process. How did this happen under the nose of the apex regulatory authorities?
When I took over as the Director of NIPER Mohali, I was approached by Dr. Animesh Roy, a scientist of the same institute, with a rather serious complaint against Prof. U.C. Banerjee. Dr. Roy alleged rampant academic misconduct by Prof. Banerjee, chief among them, plagiarism and fraudulent authorship practices, which had led to the retraction of several research papers and the withdrawal of prestigious recognitions like the Tata Innovation Award.
Dr. Roy’s appeal wasn’t just a personal vendetta. He came with documented evidence and communications, including replies received through the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Department of Pharmaceuticals, clearly outlining that the concerned authorities were well aware of the allegations and ongoing inquiries against Prof. Banerjee. Yet, shockingly, this did not stop the regularisation process.
The regularisation exercise at NIPER Mohali was conducted under the aegis of a High-Level Committee chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, with other members including Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, then Joint Secretary in the same department and a Board member of NIPER.
The Committee’s stated mandate was clear: examine whether a due process had been followed in the initial appointments, and whether the performance and conduct of the individuals merited regularisation.
All employees under consideration were asked to submit applications in a prescribed format along with supporting documents to validate their claims. A transparent and merit-driven process was promised, but what transpired appears to be anything but that.
According to records shared by Dr. Roy, Prof. U.C. Banerjee—despite facing plagiarism charges, media scrutiny, and institutional inquiries—was regularised without question. This action undermines not just the stated purpose of the Committee but shakes the very credibility of the institution.
Here comes the twist that reveals the depth of procedural abuse.
Dr. Roy, who had endured institutional harassment for raising concerns against Prof. Banerjee—including termination and years of professional uncertainty—did not even apply for regularisation. He chose not to, believing his break in service disqualified him under the mandated rules. Moreover, he was under the impression that if at all his case was considered, it would be from the initial date or appointment (retrospectively), not from the new date of joining.
Despite all this, Dr. Roy was regularised—without application, without fulfilling formal requirements, and in clear violation of the Committee’s procedural guidelines. If a mandatory application form was a non-negotiable criterion for consideration, then how was his case processed at all?
Who approved it? On what basis? And more importantly, why?
The more one looks into the details, the more this saga appears not as a case of administrative oversight but deliberate manipulation of the process. Those with active CBI FIRs against them, those with tainted academic records, and those accused of ethical violations were all regularised. Those who didn’t apply were regularised. Those who followed the rules or had legitimate grievances were ignored or punished.
There is little doubt that the regularisation process was misused not to reward merit or rectify procedural wrongs, but to protect vested interests and maintain a status quo that benefits the powerful.
The question now is not just about who got regularised, but who enabled it. What was the role of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, especially when their officers—aware of the controversies—went ahead with the approvals?
Why was there no due diligence before extending service regularisation to individuals under active scrutiny?
Will any action be taken against those who knowingly overlooked inquiries, media reports, and internal complaints?
This issue mustn’t be buried under bureaucratic files and academic silence. The regularisation exercise must be reopened and independently reviewed. Those who have benefited despite serious allegations must face an internal fact-finding committee. Whistleblowers like Dr. Roy deserve justice and institutional redress, not tokenism and irregular favours.
If premier institutions like NIPER, established to nurture world-class pharmaceutical research and education, succumb to internal corruption and policy manipulation, then we risk not just reputational loss but also the erosion of academic integrity across the country.
The need of the hour is not damage control—it is systemic cleansing and accountability.
