The row over the removal of premier Indian Statistical Institute’s (ISI) director is refusing to blow away. Prof Bimal Roy, who earned the ire of Arun Shourie, the chairman of the ISI Council that guides the running of the institution, was ‘arbitrarily’ removed from his position. Shourie, who is more known for what eminent historians of the country say, distortion of Indian ‘history,’ is now facing the opposition of almost the whole faculty of the ISI and its students. Shourie, by training, is an economist.
About 2,000 members of the science and technology community have signed a petition that is still in circulation. The petition says. “Proper independent public investigation must be done regarding the Ministry’s (of Statistics and Programme Implementation) allegations against Prof. Roy, the charges against Prof. Roy must be presented to the council, and a proper hearing must be conducted by the Council, before deciding upon the next course of action.”
It adds. “The audio recording of the Director selection meeting along with its transcript should be released immediately and investigated by independent authority,” and “Till these investigations are over and the Council decides otherwise, citing valid proof, Prof Bimal Kumar Roy should be immediately reinstated at the position of interim Director.” The charges against Prof Roy was financial impropriety,
Shourie, in response to a query by the dean of studies, said in an email, “As you know, there is a well-settled principle of law: no one can be a judge in his own cause. As the current Director was a candidate, the Minutes of the Council meeting in Bangalore need not have been given to him for signature.”
The rules of the ISI say that the chairman cannot authenticate the Minutes of the Council meeting when the director has the authority. But Shourie was so driven in removing Prof Roy that he not only signed the Minutes of the Council meeting but also the chief executive (administration and finance) who is a non-member of the Council. Shourie even issued an appointment letter to Prof Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay which again he was not authorised. He even issued an order divesting Prof Roy of all powers as the director. This too was a violation of the rules, as the only authority that could remove him was the ministry.
In a directive to the dean, Shourie wrote in the letter of 5 June – the day after Prof Roy was summarily dismissed – “The unconscionable delay in signing the Minutes, and, therefore, in issuing the letter of appointment have been distressing in the extreme. So as to foreclose the possibility of such incidents occurring again, along with Mr. Iyer, please ensure that no major decision is taken between now and 31 July, that no process for recruitment or appointment or promotion is initiated, nor any recruitment, appointment or promotion affected without the full knowledge of and the full participation of the Director-designate.”
Roy was to retire on 31 July, and <g data-gr-id="40">selection</g> committee was set up for choosing the new director. Prof Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay is the new director. The dean of studies, Prof Pradipta Bandyopadhyay informed Shourie, that since Dr Roy was a candidate for another term, he had removed himself from the Council meeting when the agenda point about appointment of the new director was to be taken up. Roy even had to get the name of his replacement from unofficial sources, and was not extended the courtesy of being informed by the Council.