Psychosis of officiating Director NIPER Mohali

                                                            Dated: 21-0702012

SPECIAL BOG MEETING

(Statement of Prof. K K Bhutani, Officiating Director)

page 5 para 2

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                        I strongly oppose the suggestion of Mr. Lalit kumar Jain that “blogger’ be called to appear before the BoG. BoG is a Supreme Body as far as NIPER is concern and I pray that this august Body may not be allowed to become a play ground for blogger and his associates, who have been indulging in serious misconduct and illegal activities, thus, liable for strict disciplinary action.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Caveat: 
1. Officiating Director knew very well, his misdeeds will be exposed without doubt once the documentations published in the blog is tabled for BOG. 


2. He has no documents in his possession to counter the allegations except blaming whistle blower of serious misconduct and illegal activity like "Filling RTI application" (!!!). 


3. His 20 लाखी मनसबदार, Register NIPER also admitted in the meeting that "we do not have all the papers asked to produce by Hon'ble BOG members in 25 plus questions".

Psychosis is natural outcome

Paradoxical: Agenda of BOG meeting unavailable in RTI but available for public meeting

Divulging BOG meeting Agenda, minutes etc before ratification in RTI is unauthorized; but issuing extension letter, disseminating what is discussed in BOG publicly is authorized. Satya Seleucus......................

From: Director
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:33 AM
To: all faculty
Subject: Meeting
Importance: High

All Faculty members

I am directed to inform you that   the  Officiating Director   has called  a meeting   on 26.7.2012   at 4.00pm   in the Central Seminar  Hall.   The   agenda  of the meeting  would be  to  discuss on the outcome of the   Special meeting of the BOG   held on 21^st  July, 2012.

Please  make it  convenient  to attend  the  meeting  as per  schedule.

Regards

Acharya

Secretary to Director

In Reply 

From: NEERAJ 
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: Meeting
To: Director all faculty

To,

Director, NIPER.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your mail below, we as faculty members are highly thankful to you for the sharing of confidential matter of BOG in the faculty meeting, otherwise these minutes are not available even in RTI to the faculty members.

To have more trust and transparency in the deliberations/outcome of the BOG meeting, you are kindly requested to circulate a written report whatever you want to say verbally in the faculty meeting. This will increase more trust among the faculty members in you.

Sincerely,

Neeraj Kumar, PhD

Department of Pharmaceutics.  

Caveat: 
Officiating Director could not provide incidental account of the Special BoG meeting.  He could only thank faculty members for keeping mum and not disclosing his misdeeds and corrupt practices. Presence of one truth warrior is good enough to counter the GANG of liars. 


Candid remark "docsahib wrong massage gone to faculties today"


   

CVOs of DoP Nee-deep or Hand-in-glove with NIPER Corruption ???

Till date many formal complaints send to CVO, Department of Pharmaceuticals directly, or transfered from CVC has not resulted any action. All the corrupt deeds of NIPER administration remains unpunished. 

One can always wonder why? It is hard to believe that an elite administrator would do so....... 

Present:

List of complains send to CVC and the status of thereof. Many cases are pending with current CVO. The action of current CVO is remains to be seen..........  

S. No.	Complaint No	Complaint Against	Organization	Action Taken By CVC	Action Taken Date	Status
1	5204/2012/ Vigilance 6	K K BHUTANI	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Filed	10/07/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
2	5250/2012/ Vigilance 6	K K BHUTANI	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	10/07/2012	Commission doesn't expect any report in this matter.   Contact CVO for further details
3	5353/2012/ Vigilance 6	K. B. TIKOO	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	10/07/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
4	5359/2012/ Vigilance 6	M JOSE	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	10/07/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
5	5412/2012/Vigilance 6	A K VIG	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	21/05/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
6	5269/2012/ Vigilance 6	SANYOG JAIN	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	17/05/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
7	5272/2012/ Vigilance 6	SARANJIT SINGH	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	17/05/2012	As per the complaint handling policy of the Commission, this Complaint has been filed
8	5203/2012/  Vigilance 6	ARUN JHA	DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS	Sent to CVO MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS for necessary action (NA)	17/05/2012	Commission doesn't expect any report in this matter.   Contact CVO for further details

Past:

But the facts are on the contrary; in the past CVO, Department of Pharmaceuticals was very much interested for the punishment of whistle blowers, asking Director to serve memo, conduct inquiry on anonymous complain, suspension and even dismissal sending all the rule and law through the window. 

A Karan under secretary Department of Pharmaceutical wrote "the complain is anonymous no actionable points emerge case may be closed" 

Though the undated anonymous letter written by NIPER staff complained about Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain,  officiating Director K. K. Bhutani, Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS specifically wanted Nilanjan Roy to be investigated. 

Complain of Dr. Parikshit Bansal against Mr. Arun Jha, IAS Previous JS and CVO of DoP 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In the view of above facts and supporting material provided herein, I appeal to you for the most stringent and exemplary action against Mr. Arun Jha, CVO, Department of Pharmaceuticals, for non-conduct of an enquiry as directed by CVC, violation of CVC Guide line and submission of false information in response to RTI. His actions have undermine the faith and trust reposed to by the common man in the office of the Central Vigilance Commission, the office of the ministry under which NIPER falls and also faith in an officer of elite service like the Indian Administrative Service.

Sincerely 

Parikshit Bansal,

Forwarded By 

Director, NIPER

Paradoxical: NIPER administration vs CVO of DOP

Joint secretary Department of Pharmaceuticals, who is also CVO in Department of Pharmaceuticals vehemently supported officiating Director telling the blog is considered anonymous and the owner is google.Anonymous complains cannot be discussed in BOG. 

"On 27.03.2012, Sh. S.C. Sharma, Director, DoP vide telephonic conversation sought clarification w.r.t. the Bloger of http://bipedagainstcorruption. blogspot.com/ as to how it can be substantiated that Blog is being run by Dr. Nilanjan Roy."

In response NIPER administration done some IT research and submitted the following reply

Paradoxical!!! when NIPER say letter is anomymious Joint secretary Department of Pharmaceuticals orders Inquiry and suspension. 

When NIPER established identity of blogger, Joint secretary Department of Pharmaceuticals says corruption charges can not be discussed in BOG since blog is anonymous

Is Ministry Nee-deep in corruption at NIPER or hand-in-glove, readers choose the expression!!! 

Onymous vs Anonymous: The perception of CVO of DOP

In response to 25 plus specific questions of BOG members related to Financial and Administrative lapses the officiating director K. K. Bhutani submitted six pages of emotional fib. The only defence he could put up "three tented faculty members defaming NIPER globally. I categorically state that there is no "breakdown of systems and procedures" .

JS pharma, who is also CVO in Department of Pharmaceuticals vehemently supported officiating Director telling the blog is considered anonymous and the owner is google. Anonymous complains cannot be discussed in BOG, conveniently forgetting the facts, 

1. w.r.t. the reply of Department of Pharmaceuticals that "Report is sought from BOG, NIPER regarding the allegations made in the BLOG" another question is tabled in Rajya Sabha,

2523. DR WAGHMARE: Will the Minister of CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS be pleased to refer to the answer to Unstarred Question 1912 given in the Rajya Sabha on 30 March, 2012 and state:

        (a) whether Government has received the report from the Board of Governors (BoG);

       (b) if so, the details thereof and the action taken by Government in each case;

       (c) if not, the reasons therefor and the steps taken by Government to make the BoG responsible as per National Institute of Pharmaceuticals Education & Research (NIPER) Act, 1998;

      (d) whether Government has made Mid Term Financial and Accountability review on each planned and non-planned funds released under Eleventh Five Year Plan;

     (e) if so, the details thereof; and (f) if not, the reasons therefor?

2. An open letter is send to Chairman BOG, and all other members, disclosing identity and offering documentary proof of corruption. 

"I offer my witness under oath voluntarily to present documentary evidences, photos and recording collected through RTI and from other reliable sources to this high power statutory committee of NIPER. My intention is to prevail the truth, in front of the Board of Governors."

3.  The Same CVO visited NIPER several times but could not see non-functional swimming pool costing 2 crore and non existant 1500 seater auditorium costing 5 plus crore.  He also could not see these cases are clear violation of GFR 2005 rule no 26, 

"(ii) that the expenditure is incurred for the purpose for which funds have been provided. 

(iii) that the expenditure is incurred in public interest." 

In what way non functional swimming pool is serving public interest MR. CVO?

Question is "Why CVO defending corrupt practices of NIPER administration?

The irony is his ancestor, previous CVO of Department of Pharmaceuticals ordered suspension and inquiry based on anonymous letter

WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2012

Corrupt IAS officer ordered inquiry based on anonymous letter

"In India we have a tendency to shoot the whistleblower" Gen VK Singh: TOI 23rd May 2012. 


Exactly the same happened in NIPER. Despite of the clear guide line fron CVC how to deal with anonymous pseudonymous letters and Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS ordered inquiry against whistle blower Dr. Nilanjan Roy, Associate professor of NIPER. 

Though the undated anonymous letter written by NIPER staff complained about Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain, Member NIPER Board of Governors as well as Finance committee and officiating Director K. K. Bhutani, regarding funneling out huge sums of money only Nilanjan Roy is singled out by  Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS

In response to the anonymous letter NIPER then acting registrar  Dr. Harmeet Sing IRS  wrote the truth this committee is only recommendatory has no power to purchase anything.  

A Karan under secretary Department of Pharmaceutical wrote "the complain is anonymous no actionable points emerge case may be closed" 

Though the undated anonymous letter written by NIPER staff complained about Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain,  officiating Director K. K. Bhutani, Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS specifically wanted Nilanjan Roy to be investigated. 

Now the question is why?

Here is why, 

As a JS pharma Mr. Jha involved in disbursing money of NIPER and also served a CVO, Thus he was well aware of activities of Whistle blowers of NIPER Dr(s). Nilanjan Roy, Parikshit Bansal and Neeraj kumar and wanted to eliminate the roadblocks in money making corrupt practices of NIPER nexus.

Complain of Dr. Parikshit Bansal against Mr. Arun Jha, IAS 

16. That on 31st March 2011 a RTI quarry was send to to the CPIO, CVC seeking to know, whether CVC had send any letter to CVO DOP for conducting inquiry regarding diversion of funds under 11th plan or not? Copy of the letter enclosed as ANNEXURE P-13 (Page 39).

In response CPIO, CVC supplied copy of two letters dated 23.02.2010 and 11.05.2010 respectively in which clear cut directions had been given to the CVO Mr. Arun Jha for conducting inquiry as reproduced below,

“it is observed that the issue appears to be one of diversion of funds from one area to another. Deptt. may therefore take up the matter for auditing. In case any vigilance angle is indicated, same may be dealt with in accordance with prescribed rules ”

             

Copy of the letter is enclosed in ANNEXURE P-14 (Page 40-42).

17. That from the above it is clear that the CVO from DOP has submitted false and misleading information in response to RTI quarry. He submitted that no directions had been received from the CVC where as CVC had sent two letters to him for conducting inquiry and taking necessary action.

18. That the action of the CVO is in violation of Office order NO 33/5/2004 dated 17th May 2004 From CVC to all CVOs directing that,

“CVO must obtain all papers with respect to a complaint and investigation should be commenced immediately. The investigation report should be submitted to the commission within two weeks “

The order also directs that, CVO should ensure that no punitive action is taken against the whistleblower”. In this particular case CVO violated all the above directions as per office order of CVC. Copy of the office order is enclosed in ANNEXURE P-15 (Page 43).

In the view of above facts and supporting material provided herein, I appeal to you for the most stringent and exemplary action against Mr. Arun Jha, CVO, Department of Pharmaceuticals, for non-conduct of an enquiry as directed by CVC, violation of CVC Guide line and submission of false information in response to RTI. His actions have undermine the faith and trust reposed to by the common man in the office of the Central Vigilance Commission, the office of the ministry under which NIPER falls and also faith in an officer of elite service like the Indian Administrative Service.

Sincerely 

Parikshit Bansal,

Forwarded By 

Director, NIPER

CC 

1. CentralVigilanceCommissioner,CentralVigilanceCommission,

Satarkata Bhawan, A Block GPO Complex, INA New Delhi-110023 

2. Chairman, Standing Committee on Chemical and Fertilizers LokSabha

Secretariat Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi 110001

3. Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS

Open Letter to CVO Department of Pharmaceuticals

UPDATES 

25-07-2012 -- Ink signed copy delivered.
24-07-2012 -- Open letter published in Blog
23-07-2012 -- Email confirmation From CVC--Your complaint has been registered.
22-07-2012 -- Open letter send to CVO of DOP and others by email.

Cry Baby

In response to 25 plus specific questions of BOG members related to Financial and Administrative lapses the officiating director K. K. Bhutani submitted six pages of emotional fib. The only defence he could put up "three tented faculty members defaming NIPER globally. I categorically state that there is no "breakdown of systems and procedures" .


He cried infront of Board that "Three faculties; one dismissed, one under inquiry and another under fact finding committee making my life miserable. 


READ not allowing to do my corrupt practices and accepting bribes for recrutement". 


In response he got answer "........your emotional response is not good enough to wash-down charges ..........produce documentary evidences"


Unfortunately he forget that the chairman BOG already gave patient hearing to all three faculty members and got the test of truth. 

NO BREAK DOWN OF SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES!!!!! 

20 lakhs for Registrar appointment, part of OF SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES!!!!!

Recrutement of three in one professor part of OF SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES!!!!! 

GOD knows how much money is exchanged? Obviously more then 20 lakhs Professor's salary is more then registrar's

Ad-hoc appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar as Professor in NIPER

NIPER Administration /Offg. Director has given 3 different statements at 3 different places regarding appointment of Dr.Naresh Kumar.

Statement 1 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Pharmaceutical Management  (NIPER Registrar Office Order no. F.1-3(293)/2011/Estt./1343 dated 19-10-2011 , indicating Dr.Naresh as Professor, Pharmaceutical Management)

Statement 2 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Business Development Group, NIPER (Statement of Prof. K.K.Bhutani given to the Chairman, APDC and duly documented  in SIGNED final minutes of 13^th APDC meeting held at NIPER on 19-11-2011, as agenda item no. 13.6)

Statement 3 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Intellectual Property Rights Cell, Deptt. Of Pharmaceutical Management.

(RTI response given vide NIPER Letter no. F 235/RTI 43/2012/1030 dated 4-5-2012 )

Moreover the appointment is made without any advertisement and without proper selection committee. The regular selection process (as per  NIPER statutes and Govt. of India rules and constitution Art, 14 regarding equal opportunity) 

Extension of Ad-hoc appointment of Dr. Jyoti Paliwal as Professor in NIPER part of OF SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES!!!!! 

How much Bhau paid for his job and extension??

In the meeting held on 28th of May 2012 the appointment and extension of Dr. Jyoti Paliwal was discussed It was inquired by one hon'bel BOG member whether any advertisement in this effect was published The reply of the BOG secretary was negative. it is opined by the Members that advertisement is a must before filling a regular post. 

After deliberation the BOG unanimously resolved that in order to keep the principle of Natural justice and fairness in the view, the advertisement of Professor should be released so that the best tallant can be recruited.   

However the extension letter is served even before draft minute is typed. The same registrar (!!) replied in many RTI quarry even after one month of BOG meeting. ".........since BOG minutes is not ratified information can not be disclosed."

"Come on!" at least have the guts to to tell the truth, face KNOWMICS in BOG meeting with documents