The Naked Truth of Power, Violence, and Lies Inside a Religious Assumption Sister’s NGO in Bihar

📍Digha, Patna | 🏢Navjeevan Educational and Social Welfare Society (NESWSD)
📅2 April 2025 — the day the mask of “service” fell off Religious of Assumption Sister.

Director: Jancy Jacob, Fake Name: Sr. Veena Jacob

Authorities are: Jancy Jacob, Sr. Vimla, Governing Body of Neswsd,
Provincial Superior of Assumptions Sister, Pune, Sr. Phillo, Sr. Sushain and
Paris Priest of Queen of the Apostles’ Church, Kurji, Patna (Fr. Selvin)

“Nitin, you are an asset to the organization.

Your going will affect NESWSD. Your talent, creativity, and commitment the quality you give,

I don’t want you to go away from NESWSD.”

Navjeevan Educational and Social Welfare Society presents itself as a “Christian service institution” working for children, women and Youth. However, the institution that operates in the name of religion, morality, and foreign funding appears as rotten, violent, and frightening from within as it looks pious from the outside. It is alleged that theft, hooliganism, corruption, threats, and exploitation of employees have been going on inside this institution for years. And at the center of this entire game stands one name as the key operator Jancy Jacob (Father’s name: (Late Jacob Pandarukunnel) and her favorite persons, she is also famous as Sister Veena with fake identity.

On the morning of 2 April 2025, what happened at the NESWSD office in Digha was not the scene of an NGO, but a living example of street-level goondaism. At around 11:30 a.m., Rakesh Kumar began shouting at employees over a trivial issue of bike parking. Within minutes, his language turned into abuse, threats, and open hooliganism. When I, the Digital Team Leader and Programme Support Officer, spoke about peace and dignity, the situation escalated further. The most shameful fact is that the Director present at that time, Jancy Jacob, remained a silent spectator. “Jancy Jacob is the slave of Rakesh Kumar”- Statement by Sr. Sherli Thomas, June 2025 (Evening).

Ironically, a CCTV camera had been installed in that very room just one day earlier, and the entire incident was recorded. Between 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., when I went to the Director’s room to submit my resignation, that same room became the center of violence. My resignation was refused. I was calmly stating that I would no longer work here, when Rakesh Kumar barged into the room, used abusive, insulting, filthy, and obscene language, and according to eyewitnesses, initiated physical assault. My shirt was torn, and I suffered injuries on my neck and hand. But the most disturbing scene was that the Director, Jancy Jacob, grabbed my collar and also threatened me, while she was seen folding her hands before the accused Rakesh. This is the moment when the role of an NGO Director especially an Assumption Sister of a Christian society comes under the gravest question.

Rakesh Kumar has been involved in criminal activities for a long time (locals says and some police complain) and has been working with Jancy Jacob. From the very beginning of the NGO, Jancy Jacob has been working with criminal-like individuals. Therefore, theft, hooliganism, corruption, threats, and exploitation of employees have long been normal in this institution. Rakesh Kumar openly claims, “I am the boss of this office.” On whose authority? During the incident, he shouted openly, “This office is mine, you all work under me.” The question is direct: by what right does he declare himself the boss of an NGO? Is this intoxication of power, open proof of institutional protection, or something else?

It is also noteworthy that whenever I went more than a hundred times to the Assumption Sister House to keep office keys or for office work, Rakesh Kumar was always sitting there for hours. Why?

In the staff meeting held the next day, on 3 April, the truth came out.

Employees unanimously stated that Rakesh Kumar’s behavior was unacceptable, especially towards female employees.

The atmosphere of fear was so intense that people hesitated to speak openly. It also emerged that Rakesh:

• Draws salary and PF from NESWSD.
• Is also the contractor of the organization under the name “Rakesh Construction,” and Jancy Jacob herself came to me to get a logo designed indicating that theft and corruption were already happening
• Meaning, theft of FCRA funds?

On 17 April, Jancy Jacob came to Nitin’s room to take the laptop. Two days later, on 19 April, it came to light that an FIR had been registered against Nitin at Digha Police Station. The most shocking fact was that the FIR contained complete details of Nitin’s home information that only Jancy Jacob possessed. When questioned, she outright denied it. Rakesh Kumar did not even know my name; even on the day of the fight he kept calling me “Nikhil,” yet complete information appeared at Digha Police Station. All this information was provided by Jancy Jacob to Rakesh Kumar, and my life began to be destroyed.

From the very day of the 2 April 2025 incident, Navjeevan’s Director Jancy Jacob began systematically subjecting me to mental harassment. I was made to sit alone in one room to work, while all other employees were shifted to a single room. All day long, I was forced to work alone in an isolated and humiliating environment. This was clearly mental harassment, aimed at breaking me and silencing me. Then, on 21 April 2025, I was suddenly handed a termination letter stating falsely that I had not applied for project extension.

The termination letter also stated that my contract ended on 31 March 2025, and since I did not apply for extension, my services were considered terminated from 1 April 2025. If this was true, the biggest question is: why was I made to work from 1 April to 21 April 2025?

Why was I not informed in time so that I could seek respectable employment elsewhere? Making me work for 21 days and then terminating my services retrospectively is not only unethical but also against the spirit of labor laws.

Even more shocking is that during the same period, a separate, clear, and formal format was used to terminate other employees, explicitly stating that “the Governing Body has decided not to extend the contract.” When asked about the Governing Body, clarification was refused, clearly indicating that Jancy Jacob did this to protect Rakesh. Thus, within the same institution, at the same time, different rules and different stories were created for different employees. This is clear evidence of selective action and personal vendetta, allowing FCRA theft, hooliganism, corruption, threats, and exploitation of employees to continue for years.

The most serious and legally objectionable fact is that the Director’s real name is Jancy Jacob, but on official letters, termination notices, and documents, she continued to write her name as Veena Jacob. Use of a different name on official documents by the Director of a registered organization constitutes a serious legal offense. It is not only an attempt to hide identity but also potentially amounts to forgery, misrepresentation, and administrative irregularity. The question is: if the Director herself is using a fake name, how valid are the orders, appointments, and terminations issued by her?

This entire episode is not merely the dismissal of an employee but presents a horrifying picture of abuse of power, mental harassment, documentary manipulation, and institutional injustice hidden behind a religious façade. Names were changed, rules were bent, and an employee was systematically broken mentally, professionally, and socially.

• Use of a different/fake name by a director on official documents is illegal
• It raises questions on the validity of documents
• It can amount to fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of identity
• Such documents are challengeable in court

Nitin attempted to peacefully return the office mobile phone, charger, and cable. But Sister Veena refused to accept them at the office and directly called the police station. This clearly shows that the issue was not about returning items, but about intimidation and branding someone as a criminal.

When the matter reached Digha Police Station, one by one, all the lies fabricated to create fear and pressure were exposed. Initially, it was spread that Sanjay Kumar’s laptop and Nitin Arya’s mobile were illegally retained, and that Neeraj Lal had hacked the CCTV. It was even claimed that “they keep watching us by hacking the CCTV.”

However, when this was investigated before the police at Digha Police Station in the presence of all concerned, it became clear that there was no CCTV hacking at all no technical evidence, no logs, no complaint. Everything turned out to be fabricated. It was also stated before the police that if CCTV had indeed been hacked, an independent IT expert should be called to investigate, which would clearly reveal when, how, and by whom the hacking occurred. Despite the fact that all IDs and passwords were already with Jancy Jacob, the police still tried to intimidate us.

For nearly two years, Nitin Arya used his personal mobile phone for office work photography, videography, reporting, and digital work all using his own resources. When his personal phone stopped working and work began to suffer, the office provided a phone. Later, when Nitin spoke about getting his own phone repaired, no response was given. Eventually, before the police, Nitin Arya handed over his phone and all related materials to Jancy Jacob. Similarly, Sanjay Kumar also deposited his laptop at the police station in front of the police. Hence, there is no question of theft, concealment, or illegal possession.

Local pressure and the “management” game to prevent the matter from becoming serious, Jancy Jacob also brought along the husband of a local ward member, Dhiru (Husband of ward Member of Digha) to exert social and political pressure on the police. The question arises: if the matter was so clear, why was a local representative brought in to “explain” and “pacify” the situation? The ward member’s husband saying, “Please settle the matter, don’t do anything,” indicates an attempt to prevent the truth from coming out. Such mediation in a legal matter itself raises suspicion.

This matter is no longer just a police complaint; it has become a direct attack on law, ethics, and institutional integrity. The police complaint filed at Digha Police Station is in the name of “Sister Veena,” whereas it is now an undisputed fact that her real and legal name is “Jancy Jacob.” The question is clear, if the complainant herself appears under a fake name, what validity does that complaint hold?

The notice sent by Digha Police Station to Nitin Arya, Sanjay Kumar, and Neeraj Lal stated that it was “extremely necessary” for them to appear at the police station to present their side on behalf of Navjeevan. This notice was received on 19 May 2025, and the language used made it seem as if a serious crime had already been established. But when the root of the complaint is examined, it becomes clear that the entire process stands on a name that is legally questionable.

• One person, two names- why?
• The most serious questions are:
• If her name is truly “Veena,” why did she write her name as Jancy Jacob at the police station?
• And if her real name is Jancy Jacob, why use Veena Jacob on official complaints and documents?

This does not appear to be a minor mistake, but a deliberate attempt to conceal identity.

Working under two different names by the Director of a registered organization directly amounts to misrepresentation and potential fraud.

Three people served notice together a method of intimidation. It is also notable that the notice was sent not only to Nitin Arya but also to Sanjay Kumar and Neeraj Lal. This indicates a strategy to bring three people under police scrutiny simultaneously to create pressure and fear. Yet, upon reaching Digha Police Station, it was clear before the police themselves that:

• There is no proof of CCTV hacking
• No digital crime
• No technical report

Still, the language and procedure of the notice show that the legal process is being used not for justice, but to exert pressure.

Use of two different names by the Director of a registered organization is not a small matter. It directly raises questions:

• Was this deliberately done to conceal identity?
• Is this not documentary manipulation (misrepresentation)?
• How valid are the orders and letters issued by such a person?

Yet, Assumption Sisters (Patna, Pune, France), donors (Children on the Edge), and church authorities: no independent inquiry, no public response.

During May, August, and November 2025, when the situation had completely spiraled out of control locally and institutional silence was under scrutiny, representatives of the donor organization Children on the Edge (UK) Rachel, Ben, and John visited India. The purpose of these visits was not mere formality, but an independent and direct review of the violent incident of 2 April 2025, the FIR registered thereafter, employee safety, and serious flaws in the internal administration of Navjeevan Educational and Social Welfare Society. The UK team met the affected employees individually and collectively, heard eyewitness accounts, and reviewed available documents, written complaints, WhatsApp chats, police notices, court records, and CCTV-related details. They also met Director Jancy Jacob (alias Sister Veena) and other staff, during which different versions of events emerged. It was clearly noted that there was a serious gap between ground reality and the reports being sent upward by local management, with many facts either partially presented or deliberately omitted. The team also highlighted internal communication issues, power structures, the atmosphere of fear, and lack of transparency in decision-making. Despite the UK team’s presence and direct observation of facts, no immediate or decisive action emerged locally due to cover-ups, selective reporting, and influential networks. This further deepened the question: when even international donors see the truth, why does the system remain unchanged, and under whose protection?

Patna. After the violent incident of 2 April 2025 linked to Navjeevan Educational and Social Welfare Society, Digha, the direction in which justice moved exposed the gravity of the case and the failure of the system. On 3 June 2025, those stated to be victims myself, Neeraj Lal, and Ravi Roshan were forced to surrender before the court of *********, Patna, under DPS Case No. *******, after which they were granted bail. The very people who complained of assault, threats, and harassment were compelled to stand in court to prove that they were not criminals, but victims.

According to court records, all three followed due legal process, surrendered before the Honorable Court, and obtained bail. This fact alone raises several questions, as in an incident involving allegations of assault, abuse, and fear, no immediate concrete action was seen against the named accused attackers, while the complainant employees faced legal pressure and criminal proceedings. The victims state that this entire episode points to a pattern where, due to power and institutional protection, the guilty are shielded and truth-tellers are dragged to court.

Legal experts say that in any democratic system, it is extremely concerning when employees who complain of violence are made accused first. This not only raises questions about workplace safety but also indicates that the balance of law can falter in the face of influential positions and networks. This is why the court action of 3 June 2025 has now become not just a date, but a symbol of the reverse flow of justice in this entire matter.

The biggest question still remains: when the assault happened openly, eyewitnesses were present, and complaints were filed, why are the attackers free, and why are the victims still standing in the dock?

Six-hour meeting with the Mother General proves ineffective, institution backtracks on promises victim receives a “letter of denial.” On 22 July 2025, when the Mother General of the Assumption Sisters from France listened to the matter seriously for a full six hours at the Digha convent and clearly directed that a solution be provided within 48 hours, the victim was assured that all pending issues, legal expenses, salary dues, and other problems would be fully resolved. The message in that meeting was clear: injustice would no longer be tolerated, and the victim would receive justice. But the reality is that months passed with no concrete action, no transparent investigation, and no real justice. Instead, the victim has now received a letter from Provincial Superior Sister Sherli Thomas, not only denying earlier promises but claiming that “all dues have already been paid” and that the victim is now “reneging on the benefits already given.”

This letter has further aggravated the matter. The person who was assured for months that the institution stood with him is now being told that he had acknowledged in writing that “no claims remain,” while the victim states that salary from April 2025 to January 2026, legal expenses, and other dues are still pending. Moreover, the letter attempts to close the matter by calling the removal of Director Jancy Jacob (alias Sister Veena) an “internal decision” and treating her alleged apology as the final truth. The victim alleges that this letter is not a document of justice, but proof of an institutional cover-up, where assurances were earlier given in the name of faith, Jesus Christ, and reconciliation, and are now being withdrawn through administrative language.

The most outrageous fact is that the directives of the six-hour meeting with the Mother General, once described as a historic step, now appear confined to paper. The promise of resolution within 48 hours turned into months, and now an email conveys that “the institution has fulfilled its duty.” This episode not only constitutes betrayal of the victim’s trust, but also shows how rotten the system is when even international leadership’s orders are not implemented at the ground level. The question now is sharper was this matter truly resolved, or was the truth exhausted, diverted, and buried under paperwork?

Final question: is this an institution, or a rotten system?

When attackers roam fearless, open, and safe; when victims are forced to bear the burden of FIRs, courts, and bail; when the Director openly stands with the accused and uses all her power to protect him; when churches, NGOs, and so-called moral institutions remain silent; and when the truth-teller is made the criminal then this question arises not gently, but with anger and outrage:

• This is not a single case. It is the root of an entire system.

Here, justice is not blind; it is deliberately keeping its eyes shut. Here, faith is used like a shield, and the name of Jesus Christ is used to cover injustice. Here, the system protects criminals and seeks to silence victims by exhausting, intimidating, and defaming them. If this is an institution, where is justice? If this is a system, how long will it continue to bleed victims?

Now this is no longer just my question, it is the question of every person who stands with the truth, every employee who works honestly, and every faith that has been turned into a tool of power brokerage. This is not just a case it is a warning.

Either the system will change, or the truth of the system will be completely exposed, Satyamev Jayate.

News Disclaimer: This report is based on documents, events, records, and statements of the victim. All concerned parties have the right to present their side. The purpose of this report is to raise questions in public interest, not to interfere with judicial proceedings.

© Copyright Notice © 2026 Nitin Arya. All Rights Reserved.

This content, including its text, structure, narrative, facts, interpretations, and presentation, is the exclusive intellectual property of the author. No part of this content may be copied, reproduced, republished, transmitted, distributed, translated, stored, or used in any form or by any means, electronic, digital, print, broadcast, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the author.

Strictly prohibited uses include, but are not limited to:

• Publication on any media house, news portal, website, blog, YouTube channel, social media platform, magazine, newspaper, or third-party platform
• Use in reports, press releases, documentaries, or derivative works
• Partial or full reproduction with or without attributions.
• Any unauthorized use, reproduction, or publication of this content will be treated as a serious violation of copyright law and may invite civil and criminal legal action under applicable laws.
• This content is shared solely for reference and record purposes and is not permitted for public redistribution.