PU syndicate to penalise senior assistant guilty of transporting heritage furniture out of campus

In the probe report, a copy of which was accessed by The Indian Express, the panel found Kumar has violated Rule 1.1 of the Rules Governing Conduct of Panjab University Employees.

Niraj Kumar was posted as the officer in-charge of boys’ hostel number 5 at the time of the incident in May 2019. A security guard had caught a rickshaw puller taking the heritage furniture from hostel number 5 out of the campus without any permission. The rickshaw puller had told the guard that Kumar had told him to take the heritage table to a carpenter in Maloya. Following this, the PU authority ordered a probe against Kumar.

A PU spokesperson said, “The Syndicate approved the inquiry report dated submitted by Jagroop Singh Mahal against Niraj Kumar, Senior Assistant, Boys Hostel No.5, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The report opined that Niraj Kumar violated Rule1.1 of the Rules governing conduct of University employees and is guilty of serious misconduct. He will be imposed major penalty and will be demoted.”

The report shows that during the course of the probe, Kumar had claimed that the table in question was being sent to a carpenter in Maloya for repairing. On another occasion, he had changed his stand and claimed that the table was being sent to the women’s hostel, where a carpenter, Sonu, was going to repair it. Throughout the probe, Kumar had feigned ignorance of the fact that the table may be a heritage item, with records from the PU later establishing that all furniture items in hostel number 5 were indeed classified as ‘heritage items’.

The probe report stated, “Niraj Kumar violated all three requirements of Rule 1.1 of the Rules Governing Conduct of Panjab University Employees. Removing the table without getting gate pass or written permission of the Warden reeks of dishonesty and is an attempt to commit theft of the said table. That is why Niraj Kumar was in a hurry to send the table out of the hotel without telling anybody and without obtaining proper orders from the warden. If Niraj Kumar had been honest in his conduct, he would have made an entry in the register about the table’s movement and at least informed the warden about his action. There was no urgency involved and we cannot believe that the table required immediate repairs. He, therefore, tried to commit theft and exhibited dishonesty in connection with university property. He did not maintain absolute integrity nor show devotion to duty. He acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee of the university.”