The Case of Dr. U.C. Banerjee, Abuse of Process and Power in NIPER Mohali
In an alarming case of institutional betrayal, Dr. Uttam Chand Banerjee—former Dean at the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, and a scientist facing serious plagiarism allegations—was shockingly regularised as a permanent employee through what appears to be a clear abuse of authority by senior officials of the Department of Pharmaceuticals.
As the then Director of NIPER Mohali, I was formally approached by Dr. Animesh Roy, a scientist at the same institute. Dr. Roy alleged that Dr. Banerjee had plagiarized his work, usurping research material authored by Dr. Roy and publishing it under his name without any attribution. The charges were so serious that they led to the withdrawal of the prestigious Tata Innovation Award earlier conferred on Dr. Banerjee.
Dr. Roy, invoking provisions under the NIPER Act and Statutes, demanded the constitution of an arbitration tribunal to probe the allegations. However, the authority to constitute such a tribunal rested solely with the Department of Pharmaceuticals. Complicating matters further, the then Board of Governors, chaired by Dr. V. M. Katoch, maintained a hostile stance towards me, making internal resolution impossible.
In parallel, Dr. Roy had already submitted his complaint directly to the Department of Pharmaceuticals. At the time, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal served as Joint Secretary in the department. Dr. Roy enclosed a critical communication—D.O. No. 57013/3/2016-NIPER, dated 16th March 2017—which Mr. Tingal had addressed to Dr. G. N. Qazi, Director General of the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jamia Hamdard.
This letter was also copied to Prof. V. S. Chauhan, former Director of the International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology and Member of the University Grants Commission (UGC). In this communication, Mr. Tingal referenced two earlier letters dated 28th October and 1st December 2016, which formally nominated both Prof. Chauhan and Dr. Qazi to investigate the plagiarism charges against Dr. Banerjee. Several supporting documents and complaints had already been forwarded to both experts.
Despite follow-up reminders sent on 23rd December 2016 and again on 10th February 2017, no conclusion was drawn before the department acted. Ironically, in the same 16th March 2017 letter, Mr. Tingal also referenced a telephonic discussion he had with Prof. Chauhan, urging him to expedite the examination of the plagiarism charges and submit comments and recommendations.
Then came a shocking revelation.
Dr. Roy visited my office again, this time with an RTI reply issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The RTI bore the signature of Mr. Satish Kumar, who was then the Under Secretary and Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for the department. The reply confirmed that a High-Level Committee had convened on 28th February 2017 and, during that meeting, had recommended the regularisation of several contractual employees, including Dr. U.C. Banerjee.
There was no indication—none whatsoever—that the committee had taken the plagiarism charges against Dr. Banerjee into account while making this recommendation. And here’s the critical contradiction: the same Mr. Rajneesh Tingal who was a member of that High-Level Committee, and who endorsed the regularisation of Dr. Banerjee on 28th February 2017, was still pushing for an expert inquiry into the same allegations on 16th March 2017—two weeks after the regularisation was already approved.
The timeline exposes a glaring inconsistency. Mr. Tingal had already received and referenced all relevant communications—dated 28th October 2016, 1st December 2016, 23rd December 2016, and 10th February 2017. He was fully aware of the gravity of the plagiarism charges. Yet, he proceeded to allow Dr. Banerjee’s regularisation without any closure on the complaints.
This makes one thing clear: Mr. Tingal not only ignored serious pending complaints, but he also deliberately endorsed a decision in full knowledge of their existence. Worse still, his belated follow-up with Prof. Chauhan and Dr. Qazi appears to be a cover-up—an afterthought aimed at manufacturing a defence once the damage was already done.
This is not a minor lapse in judgment. It is a gross abuse of power and a betrayal of the regulatory mandate entrusted to senior officers of the Department of Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Tingal and all those complicit—including Mr. Satish Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO—have much to answer for. They failed the system. They misled the High-Level Committee, which was formed to oversee a serious and sensitive process involving the regularisation of scientists in an Institution of National Importance.
This episode demands nothing short of accountability. All those involved must be investigated. If found guilty, they must be penalised, including the revocation of pensions and service benefits. Such institutional subversion cannot be allowed to stand, or it risks eroding the very foundation of academic and research integrity in India. (To be continued)
