1. Registered Post
Dated: 08.11.2010
The Assistant Registrar (Exam-II)
Kurukshetra University
Kurukshetra 136119 Haryana
Subject: Reply to the Complaint by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta regarding Plagiarism-Copy
Rights violation.
Refer to your letter no. AR (R-H)/S-III/653-54, dated 28.05.10 and further
communications in this regard, it is submitted that the complaint filed by Sh. Mahesh
Kumar Gupta is false, frivolous, irrelevant, and baseless. There is no plagiarism-copy right
violation as falsely alleged in the complaint rather it is my original work done under the kind
supervision of my guide Dr. SK Sharma. The present complaint is the case of personal vendetta
and the matter has been dragged to university just to harass me for his personal grudge.
However, to substantiate this I would like to submit the following for your kind considerations:
1)The main title of the dissertation 'Production Planning Problems in Engineering Industry' has
been duly approved in the then BOS of Mechanical Engineering and is exactly the same as the
title mentioned in dissertation copy submitted and further evaluated for partial fulfillment of the
requirement of M Tech degree (Title Page of the dissertation -Annexure 1) in the year 1991.
However, main title also consists of subtitle which reflects the content of the work, which has
also been corroborated under para 1 of the enquiry report submitted by Dr. Nand Lai. Therefore,
the charges against the officers/officials of Kurukshetra University and the then REC
Kurukshetra are baseless and false; which prima-facie reflects the ill-intentions of the
complainant.
2)The dissertation submitted by me is purely the original work done by me and not a verbatim
copy of the project work reported by Sh. Yogesh Saxena as falsely alleged in the complaint and
the same may be concluded / verified from the following facts:
a. Literature review section reported in both the dissertations differ significantly (Page 6-7
of dissertation submitted by me and Page 11-12 of Dissertation by Sh.Yogesh Saxena).
The search decision rules discussed by Mr. Yogesh Saxena (Page 21 of his dissertation)
is completely absent in the literature section of the dissertation submitted by me (Page
12). The problem has been solved with different variant of goal programming which can
be elucidated from Page 22-23 of the dissertation submitted by me; that explains the
solution technique used for solving the
problem dataset. ^-
■f If

2. -—IMS —■
b. Section 4.3 explains the procedure to implement goal programming and method of
analysis which clearly indicates the steps involved (Page 22-24 of dissertation by Pankaj
Chandna). A computer program based upon the modified variant of Lee goal
programming technique was developed by me and this section clearly indicates the
data input, output and calculations to be made for the results of the program.
Comparison of this section (4.3 of my dissertation) and section 3.3 (Page 26-29 of
dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena) clearly shows that the procedure and the steps
followed were entirely different in both the cases. This clearly reveals that the work done
in my dissertation is purely my own work and has no relevance with the work reported by
Sh. Yogesh Saxena.
c. Further, the computer program based upon the aforesaid approach was developed and run
by me on the the dataset being provided by my guide and solved in the computer lab of
the Electrical engineering department of the then REC Kurukshera (as no computer lab
was available in the Mechanical Engineering Department). It is worth mentioning that the
program was developed with the help of few faculty members whose contribution has
been duly acknowledged in the Acknowledgement section of the dissertation submitted
by me. The program was run before the external examiner at the time of viva-voce and
the output of the program generated by the computer is attached herewith for your ready
reference (Page 54-61 of Dissertation by Pankaj Chandna-Annexure 2). The comparison
of the results/ output of the program reported in both the cases vary significantly. In this
regard, some of the points are explained below for your kind attention:
i. Length of the output of the program (Page 54-58 of the dissertation by Pankaj
Chandna) is of more lines (307 lines) as compared to the output reported in appendix-II
of the dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3); which is of 292 lines which
clearly indicate that the program developed by me was entirely different.
ii. The values obtained in the output of the program (Page 54-55 of the dissertation by
Pankaj Chandna) vary significantly from the output reported in appendix-II of the
dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3).
iii. Values of Zj-Cj matrix obtained are entirely different (Page 59 of Dissertation by
Pankaj Chandna) when compared with the corresponding values reported in the
dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3).
iv. The comparison of the results shows the variation in the values of slack analysis
reported (Page 60 of the dissertation of Pankaj Chandna and appendix-II of the
dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena).
v. Values obtained of the variable analysis (Page 61 of the dissertation by Pankaj
Chandna) of the results again vary significantly and suggests that program run by me
provided different results in comparison to the results reported by Sh. Yogesh Saxena
(Annexure 3).
Comparison of these values and facts explained above shows that the work of my dissertation
is totally different and indicates the variation of the values in every part of the results obtained
with a different program developed. The attached results (Page 54-61 of my dissertation) clearly
shows that these are the direct output of the program run on the computer and which was then verified
and evaluated by the external examiner. It is pertinent

3. to mention here that even a slight change in the results by application of modified
techniques/ theories can be of significant importance in applied engineering research,
but in my case there is a significant variation in the results as explained above. The
reported work allows the continuation of further research in that direction and this
dissertation is a small project work done at PG level with limited IT facilities that too
about 20 years back. The enquiry officer Dr. Nand Lai also admitted in his
report vide by Para 2 that there are differences of few words here and there;
but the respected officer failed to appreciate that the minor differences in the
world of science and technology can be of paramount importance, therefore,
prime facie the enquiry officer also accepted the difference between two
dissertations.
3)It is further submitted that merely submission of dissertation has not made the
declaration of the final result. It was only after the viva voce examination conducted by
a committee constituted by the university; including the then chairman of the
Mechanical Engineering Department, External examiner deputed by the university and
the internal supervisor. All these members along with few other faculty members of the
department were very much present during viva voce examination. The final result was
declared only after the submission of the report of external examiner after viva
voce examination.
4)Moreover during my MTech studies I never visited IIT Delhi and at the same time I
had never met Sh. Yogesh saxena or Dr. N Singh and whatsoever work has been
reported in my dissertation is my own work under the able guidance of my supervisor
which has also been certified by my guide stating that this dissertation is a record of
candidate's own work carried out by him under his supervision. Also the complaint is time
barred as it has been filed after a gap of around 20 years and is not maintainable
and has been filed just to harass me for his personal grudge.
5)Here I want to submit that I have been a meritorious student throughout my academic
career since matriculation examination (Resume of Pankaj Chandna-Annexure 4). I
secured more than 81% marks (merit) in matriculation examination. I was the l(f h ranker
in Haryana state during my higher secondary examination. I did my graduation in
Mechanical Engineering from a reputed institute i.e. Regional Engineering College
Kurukshetra with honors. I joined the faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department of
REC Kurukshetra in1994 and since then I have published more than thirty five research
papers into International/National journals/conferences and have been the reviewer of
three international journals (Annexure 5). I am supervising 06 PhD scholars and have
supervised 20 MTech & 12 UG projects till date. I have been felicitated with one
international and one national award (Annexure 6). During my professional career, I
have brought laurels to my institute many a times; to mention, recently I have been
appreciated by His Excellency Governor of Haryana and Board of Governors, NIT
Kurukshetra for my contributions (Annexure 7).
6)The complainant is not an affected party at all and he has no iocus standi to make this
false frivolous and baseless complaint. This complaint is the clear cut case of personal
vendetta. The complainant Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta and his wife are my colleagues
and have been working in the Mechanical Engineering Department of NIT Kurukshetra
alongwith me for more than 14 years. In 2007, NIT Kurukshetra advertised the post of
assistant professor and I and wife of the complainant Smt. Meenu Gupta applied for the
same, I had been selected for the post of assistant professor but unfortunately the wife of
the complainant could not succeed. Since then, the complainant and his wife started
having ill intentions against me and as a result of which, the wife of the complainant
filed a writ petition CWP No. 7966 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
court Chandigarh against my selection and both of them openly threatened me in the
department that they will not spare me and will go to any extent and this complaint is
also the outcome of the same. It is important to mention here that the Hon 'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court have already heard the arguments and has not granted any relief to the wife
of complainant till date.
In the light of the above submissions it is very much clear that the present complaint is
false, frivolous and baseless and with the sole motive of mental, physical and financial
harassment /mental agony to me. There is no verbatim and violation of copyright in this
case. Mr. Yogesh Saxena never objected to my dissertation and there is no such proof
exists on the file and at the same time it is also clear that there is no proof regarding
verbatim on the file. Therefore, I respectfully pray Hon'ble Authorities to file the
present false complaint by considering the aforesaid submission and withdraw the
show cause notice with immediate effect in the interest of justice.
It is further submitted that my physical presence may be sought any time by the
authorities for any sort of clarifications / queries in this regard. Further, the contents of
the complaint are highly defamatory against me as well as against the university and I
reserve my right to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant in the competent
court of jurisdiction.
Thanking You,
Sincerely Yours,

4. (Dr. Pankaj Chandna)
Associate Professor, IBM
Department of Mechanical
Engineering National Institute of
Technology Kurukshetra.
Enclosures: Annexure 1-7