The case of Dr Nilanjan Roy, who was fired some time ago after he made accusations of financial impropriety against the NIPER management, seems to have no end in sight. A board meeting is scheduled on May 28, and one assumes that his case will be discussed. As I wrote earlier, I would like to see a review of the case by an independent committee.
Earlier NIPER fired another scientist, Dr Animesh Roy, who had alleged plagiarism against another NIPER scientist, Uttam C Banerjee. A review committee, appointed by the NIPER board, found in 2009 that there was no case against Animesh Roy and recommended that he be reinstated; it also made critical comments of some senior NIPER faculty, some of which appeared in the media.
After my previous blog post, Dr K K Bhutani, officiating director of NIPER, phoned me to put his side of the story. I reiterated what I said in my open letter, that in view of past events an independent inquiry is essential. I emphasised that I am not trying to judge this case and am not competent to do so. (For this reason, though I was in Mohali for a couple of days this week, I did not try to contact either Bhutani or Nilanjan.) He promised to end me some documents, which I have not yet received; to my surprise he said he has no copy of the review committee report on Dr Animesh Roy. I do not intend to share the rest of my conversation with him.
I did, however, receive a copy of the review committee report on Dr Animesh Roy from another source. It is a PDF generated from a word file in May 2012, so I cannot swear to its accuracy. It does, however agree with the little that has appeared in public. Since I have no way of knowing whether it has been tampered with, I will not share its contents here, beyond saying that it criticises several senior members of NIPER in extremely strong language, and if any minister or other functionary were criticised similarly he or she would have to resign. I can add that four senior scientists at NIPER promised to resign if Animesh Roy is reinstated at NIPER: this threat, in the report that I received, was reproduced in The Telegraph in 2009. I wonder why they did not keep that promise.
All in all, it is a mess that can only be sorted out by an independent look at the situation. No news is not good news in this case.