The courtroom was fairly packed on Thursday when the Supreme Court took up a service dispute involving the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER). The matter had a bit of urgency written all over it-an employee already reinstated, costs paid, and now the apex court stepping in to put things on pause. After a short but pointed hearing, the Bench chose to stay the reinstatement ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while keeping the larger issues open for final decision.
Background
The case traces back to disciplinary proceedings initiated by National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research against one of its employees, Dr Neeraj Kumar. The institute had removed him from service following an inquiry.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects State's Land Acquisition Appeal, Upholds Enhanced
Dr Kumar challenged this internally, and the appellate authority softened the punishment, replacing removal with compulsory retirement. Still dissatisfied, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A single judge dismissed his writ petition, but the Division Bench took a different view later.
The High Court Division Bench concluded that the charges had not been proved during the inquiry. It ordered Dr Kumar’s reinstatement without back wages and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the institute. Under the looming threat of contempt, NIPER complied-reinstating the officer and paying the costs.
That compliance, however, did not end the dispute. The institute carried the matter to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s approach.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Declines Arbitration Route in New India Assurance–HDFC Bank Lease Dispute
Court’s Observations
Hearing the special leave petitions, the Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed Dr Kumar, who was present on caveat, to argue in person. Notices were issued, though formal service was dispensed with since the respondent was already before the Court.
At the heart of the Bench’s concern was the High Court’s method. The judges indicated that, prima facie, the Division Bench appeared to have stepped beyond its limits. As the Court observed, the High Court had “embarked on an exercise of appreciating evidence as an appellate authority,” something normally avoided in service matters unless glaring illegality is shown.
The Bench also took note of the practical situation. Since reinstatement had already taken place and the ₹10 lakh costs had been paid, the Court chose not to order an immediate refund. “For the present, we are not inclined to direct the respondent to refund the amount,” the Bench said, making it clear that this would depend on the final outcome of the appeals.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Hearing in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Case, Allows States to Continue
Decision
In the operative part of the order, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s direction of reinstatement. The stay, the Bench clarified, will continue until the appeals are finally decided. Importantly, the Court added that if NIPER’s appeals fail, Dr Kumar would be entitled to full service benefits for the period during which he is prevented from working due to the stay.
The institute has been directed to place the complete inquiry records on file by 19 January 2026, if not already done. The appeals have been listed for final hearing on 19 February 2026.
Case Title: National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) vs. Dr Neeraj Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Civil) Nos. 35771–35772 of 2025
Case Type: Service Matter – Disciplinary Proceedings / Reinstatement
Decision Date: 19 December 2025
