NIPER’s action against faculty member rooted in ‘malice in law’: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) against Assistant Professor Dr Neeraj Kumar were vitiated by “malice in law”, before setting aside his compulsory retirement and imposing Rs 10 lakh costs for a decade-long “harassment and victimisation”.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor directed his immediate reinstatement with continuity of service, after finding that none of the charges levelled against him were “even remotely proved.”

Allowing an appeal, the Bench held: “None of the charges were even remotely proved against the appellant and, therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement is also unsustainable.”

The court disapproved the findings of the Single Judge, who had dismissed Dr. Kumar’s writ petition in 2015 by holding that the penalty did not shock judicial conscience.

The Bench asserted: “Till the time when the appellant raised the objections against the constitution of the Selection Committee, there were no accusations ever made against him. What is unusual to note is that though the Selection Committee had recommended the extension of the appellant and also his promotion, but such recommendation was not accepted by the Board of Governor apparently, as in the intervening period complaints made by the appellant had come to the knowledge of the respondent-NIPER resulting in non-acceptance of the recommendations of Selection Committee”.

The Bench also observed that the institute failed to fairly reassess his grievance, despite repeated opportunities

“Repeated opportunities have been extended by this court… which have fallen on deaf ears and an adamant approach still prevails on part of the respondent-NIPER,” the court asserted.

The court added even the Rapid Grievance Redressal Committee had concluded in favour of Dr Kumar, yet NIPER persisted with action.

Finding the inquiry report and the resultant termination order unsustainable, the Bench held that “malice in law is apparent on record and, therefore, we cannot shut our eyes to the gross injustice meted out to the appellant.”

The court ordered Dr Kumar’s reinstatement forthwith as Assistant Professor. In view of the amendment to the Statutes allowing faculty to continue till superannuation, it directed that he be allowed to serve uninterruptedly and that his claims for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor be considered by treating his service as “continuous and uninterrupted.” However, it clarified that he would not be entitled to salary for the period he did not actually work.

Imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh on NIPER for its conduct, the Bench held that the institute’s actions had caused harassment for “nearly 10 years.” It permitted NIPER to hold an inquiry to fix responsibility and recover the amount from the erring officials.

The Bench also placed on record its appreciation for Senior Advocate D.S. Patwalia, who assisted the court as Amicus Curiae, along with Advocate Sehar Navjeet Singh.