How the Department of Pharmaceuticals Undermined Accountability at NIPER
The unfolding saga at NIPER Mohali offers a disturbing glimpse into how powerful bureaucrats and pliable administrators can bury institutional integrity, stonewall due process, and reward questionable conduct — all while funded by public money.
At the heart of the controversy is Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel, who was functioning as Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts) at NIPER Mohali. During my tenure as Director, I had to suspend Mr. Chandel over serious acts of omission and commission. A detailed chargesheet was prepared, and an inquiry was to follow. But that’s precisely when the interference began.
I faced mounting pressure from Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, the then Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), and from Dr. V. M. Katoch, the Chairman of NIPER’s Board of Governors, to revoke Chandel’s suspension. I stood my ground. The inquiry was never allowed to proceed. Instead, for refusing to toe the line, I was summarily removed from my post.
Soon after, Dr. SJS Flora — a known yes-man of Dr. Katoch and Mr. Tingal — was brought in with Additional Charge as Director. One of his first actions? Appointing Mr. Chandel, a suspended and chargesheeted employee, as the Officiating Registrar. It was a blatant reversal of my efforts to uphold discipline and transparency. No inquiry, no due process — just quiet rehabilitation of the accused.
A few days ago, a female employee shared with me a copy of Civil Writ Petition (CWP-28606-2023), which challenges Mr. Chandel’s appointment. Shockingly, the petitioner is an outsider who obtained critical details via the Right to Information (RTI) Act — information the Institute rarely parts with easily. The way this data was selectively handed over suggests insider complicity.
The court, however, ruled that the Deputy Registrar (F&A) post at NIPER Mohali is not a public office, and therefore the appointment cannot be challenged on that ground. The judgment cited an earlier ruling in the case of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, Registrar of the Institute. This is deeply ironic. NIPER, a centrally funded institute established under an Act of Parliament, receives crores of rupees in public funds. Yet, according to this interpretation, its top appointments are immune to public scrutiny?
Interestingly, when I challenged my termination in court, the very same Department of Pharmaceuticals argued that NIPER is fully funded and controlled by the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers. So, which version is true? That it’s a public institution when it suits them — and not when it doesn’t?
Let’s examine the facts from the petition challenging Chandel’s appointment:
- He lacked the mandatory experience in a research institution or higher education.
- He did not possess five years of relevant financial experience as Assistant Registrar or equivalent.
- His MA in Sociology (51.4% marks) fell short of the required 55% in Finance & Accounting.
- His MBA in Financial Management was obtained only in 2011, giving him just over three years of relevant experience, well short of the five-year requirement.
Despite these glaring shortcomings, Mr. Chandel was regularized in service. Why? Who in the Department of Pharmaceuticals cleared this appointment, knowing it flouted every eligibility norm? Were they misled by NIPER officials who provided false data, or were they complicit in a larger regularization scam?
There are broader implications. If misrepresentations were made during the regularization process, shouldn’t those responsible — both in the Institute and the Ministry — be held criminally liable? Why shouldn’t those who manipulated appointments or tampered with eligibility data be prosecuted for misuse of public office?
Adding insult to injury, I was once reprimanded by Ministry officials for using Institute funds to pursue litigation against Dr. Katoch. They argued that public money must not be used for personal vendettas. But the same logic doesn’t seem to apply when lakhs are paid in salaries and benefits to ineligible appointees?
The current legal battle has escalated to an LPA (LPA-233-2025) in the High Court, with the Union of India named as the respondent. Hearings have already been held on January 27, March 4, April 7, and July 9, 2025. It remains to be seen whether the court will look beyond technicalities to examine the substance of the appointment and the systemic rot that enabled it.
As a former Director of NIPER Mohali, I find it disheartening that insiders have failed to question irregularities, while an outsider — armed with RTI disclosures — has taken the matter to court. This exposes the lengths to which the system protects the compromised and punishes those who dare to act on principle.
The real question is: How many more such appointments have been quietly regularized in violation of norms? And how many more will it take before accountability finally prevails?
