Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Grievance Redressal Mechanism has already found that the charges against the appellant did not merit any action. Respondent(s)-NIPER, however, has taken a stand that the forum of Grievance Redressal itself was not competent to go into this issue.
We are not much impressed by such stand of the respondent(s)- NIPER. It is at this stage that we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter as learned counsel for the respondent-NIPER, on instructions from the Director, states that NIPER is willing to reconsider the matter in its next Board meeting. He also informed that a new Director has since joined. The Director also happens to be the Chairman of BOD. We see no reason as to why the Director/Chairman cannot examine the grievance of the appellant in a just and fair manner without being influenced by the impugned action. We also provide that the then HOD who is now a member of the Board shall recuse himself from the proceedings of the Board when this matter is taken up. This liberty is being granted to the NIPER as the Court would not like to interfere in the affairs of a premier educational institution at the first instance and would give an opportunity to the Institution to re-visit the matter, at its own level.

11. The respondent-NIPER has been established under the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A notification has been issued by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Govt. of India on 30.10.2003, notifying the statutes of NIPER. Clause 3.6 of the NIPER Statutes refers to the Selection Committee. The quorum has been specified as 50% of the total strength of the members. In addition, the clause provides that Selection Committee for appointment to the posts specified shall be prescribed in the table appended the NIPER Statutes. The Selection Committee for Assistant/Associate Professor consists as under:-

14. The appellant challenged the decision of the Board of Governors dated 02.08.2011 by filing writ petition No.19277 of 2011, which ultimately came to be dismissed as having become infructuous. It further transpires that on 10.11.2011, a complaint was made by the appellant alleging violation of the NIPER Statutes in appointing the Registrar of NIPER. What followed thereafter was that the appellant filed yet another writ petition i.e. CWP No.18789 of 2011, challenging the re-constitution of the Senate on the ground that NIPER Statute was not followed.

10 of 20 LPA-1067-2015(O&M) and LPA-1981-2016 (O&M) [11]

22. The complaints made by Dr. A.K. Bansal, Head of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, ultimately led to initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant in which the appellant was charged with following five Charges/Articles:-

"Charge-1 (Article 1) That Dr. Neeraj Kumar while working as Assistant Professor in National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (NIPER), Sector-67, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160062 used unacceptable and derogatory words against seniors thus indulging in insubordination and misbehavior thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1) (iii) and 3 A(a) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to NIPER. Charge-2 (Article 2) That Dr. Neeraj Kumar while working as Assistant Professor in National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (NIPER), Sector-67, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160062 refused to allow benefit of departmental course PE- 620 and PE-820 to Pharmaceuticals Ph.D. students thus violating Rule 3(1) (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to NIPER.