Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner joined National Institute of Pharmaceutical & Educational Research (NIPER) as Assistant Professor on 29.07.2003. The appointment was on contractual basis for five years. In the contract, it was stipulated that the appointment may be terminated on three months' notice or three months' basic pay in lieu thereof on either side without any cause assigned. After the expiry of initial five years period in 2008, the contract of the petitioner was extended for six months on four different occasions and finally vide letter dated 08/13.09.2011 (Annexure P-36), the petitioner was informed that the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 2.8.2011 after considering the recommendation of the selection committee with respect to the renewal of contract and Career Advancement Scheme of the petitioner decided that the case shall be reviewed by a special committee and till such time his service would continue. This course was adopted because on the basis of complaints received against the petitioner, a confidential agenda containing a draft charge-sheet was placed before the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1- Institute vide agenda item No.54.19 in its meeting held on 02.08.2011, wherein the Board of Governor resolved and authorized respondent No.3 to issue a charge-sheet to the petitioner and appoint Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer as per provisions of the Rules. No sooner the petitioner came to know about this decision, he made a formal representation on 19.08.2011 to respondent No.2 (Chairman NIPER Board of Governors), who is also the Appellate Authority as per NIPER statutes, listing out various grievances against the authorities of NIPER. Respondent No.2 on 23.08.2011 directed the petitioner to submit the reply to the charge-sheet so that he could go through the reply and provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to redress his grievances. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 17.11.2011 by respondent No.3 (Officiating Director and also Disciplinary Authority), which contained the following articles of charge:

"ARTICLE-I That Dr. Neeraj Kumar while working as Assistant Professor in National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (NIPER), Sector-67, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160062 used unacceptable and derogatory words against seniors thus indulging in insubordination and misbehaviour thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3 (i) (iii) and 3A(a) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to NIPER.

As no action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, he filed CWP-2211 of 2012 for directions to respondent No.2 to exercise his statutory power under clause 3.1.2-j of the NIPER statutes. This petition was disposed of vide order dated April, 24, 2012 with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the grievances of the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal hearing in Delhi on 26.06.2012, wherein, he again submitted his grievances in writing to respondent No.2. As no decision was taken within stipulated 8 weeks period, the petitioner filed COCP-2090-2012. Respondent No.2 initially vide letter dated 14.09.2012 issued directions to the Inquiry Officer to keep the inquiry in abeyance pending the consideration of the representation of the petitioner. On 05.11.2012, he passed a speaking order concluding that he did not find any evidence of malafide on the basis of which the impartiality of NIPER Administration can be doubted or it could be concluded as biased. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 14.02.2012. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 18.12.2012 to respondent No.3, wherein, he again raised certain grievances namely that the Disciplinary Authority had misled the Board of Governors while submitting the confidential agenda item, the non-citing of Mr.Prasad Pawar, the SC student, as a witness, who was alleged to be harassed and that the Inquiry Officer and the Presiding Officer are biased against the petitioner. He also sent a similar representation dated 27.12.2012 to respondent No.2 (Annexure P-15), who vide his letter dated 16.02.2013 (Annexure P-16) advised the petitioner to cooperate with the inquiry so that it could be completed in a reasonable time. The petitioner was advised to argue his case before the Inquiry Officer and present evidence to substantiate his version. Respondent No.2 found no ground to issue any specific direction to the Director (NIPER), the Disciplinary Authority. It was stated that being the Appellate Authority, he would examine the matter at the time of appeal, if the petitioner was still aggrieved with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Meanwhile, in the absence of any directions to stay the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and as the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry despite being given sufficient opportunities, the inquiry was held ex-parte.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that not one of the five articles of charge can be stated to be proved on the basis of the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer. With regard to the first article of charge, he stated that the allegation of his having used unacceptable and derogatory words against his seniors and his indulging in insubordination and misbehavior are false and baseless. The alleged unacceptable and derogatory words used by the petitioner against his seniors are in reality complaints and court cases filed by the petitioner against the seniors of the respondent-Institute for violation of provisions of NIPER rules and statutes. Regarding the allegation in the second article of charge that he refused to allow the benefit of departmental course PE-620 and PE-820 to Pharmaceutical Ph.D. students, thus, violating rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, he states that he has not refused to allow benefit of departmental course to any student. Only some delay was caused for allowing the benefit, which was because the respondent- Institute delayed taking a decision for allotment of guide to Ph.D. students and accordingly, the petitioner could not be held responsible for delay and refusal of benefit to the students. Regarding the third allegation that he was responsible for harassment of one S.C. student Mr. Prasad Pawar, thus, violating Rule3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, it has been argued that the allegation is false and has been levelled to conceal the real allegation of complainant Mr. Prasad Pawar before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes in his complaint (Annexure P-25) where the student alleged that he was facing discrimination at the hands of the Head of Department, Dr. Sanyog Jain. He further states that the student himself in his affidavit dated 06.02.2012 had stated that he had no grievance against Dr. Neeraj Kumar. He further argued that the relevant para 11 of the letter dated 27.09.2010 of the student, wherein, he stated that he wanted NIPER fellowship under the petitioner, which clearly indicates that the student had no grievance against the petitioner, has deliberately not been referred to in the inquiry report. Regarding the other two allegations of unacceptable behaviour, insubordination, vitiating the atmosphere of the department and disrupting the academic activities and levelling false allegations against his seniors, it has been stated that they are based on the evidence of Prof. A.K. Bansal, Head, Department of Pharmaceutical, who was and is inimical to the petitioner. He refers to the report of the Ombudsman/ Review Committee dated 22.04.2009 constituted by the Board of Governors to review the case of Dr. Aminesh Ray, Ex. Scientist, NIPER, which stated that Prof. K.K. Bhutani, Prof. Saranjit Singh, Prof. U.C. Banerjee, Prof. Rama Rao had a common nexus to keep Dr. Animesh Ray out of the system since he had blown the whistle against the unethical acts and wrong deeds at NIPER. Though, they had no doubt about the academic competence of Dr. Animesh Ray, yet they did not want him to be retained at NIPER, Mohali. He emphasized that Dr. Saranjit Singh and Dr. U.C. Banerjee who have been adversely commented upon by the Ombudsman are complainants and witnesses to prove article V of the charge and Dr. K.K. Bhutani is the Disciplinary Authority. As these three were held responsible for the illegal removal of Dr. Animesh Ray, hence no credence can be given to them.