This did once happen to me; a disaffected colleague on the way out decided to leave a trail of damage behind, although fortunately it was a general onslaught rather than a personal vendetta. For self-protection, firstly, keep new ideas, work and plans away from the person in question; they will gradually starve of inspiration.

You need to proceed through your institutions reporting mechanisms which usually starts with whoever is the director of your department.  I don't think it is wise to try confronting the person first by yourself--as it is likely to result in denial and some sort of personal retaliatoy action against you.   You need support and you will be involved in the process but morally and likely legally you cannot "do nothing". Best wishes on a hard but necessary journey.

I agree with Linda's wise and thoughtful comment.

However, I wonder if this is not part of a wider problem of how to cope with un-collegial and anti-collegial behaviour in what is an increasingly competitive academic environment. So - on one front - academics need to identify and demand the institutional conditions necessary for collegial and mutually supportive relations.

But also - on the other front - academics need to drag into the public domain acts of academic vindictiveness and/or blatant unfairness. For one academic to seek to damage the career of another academic is appalling and deeply damaging to the institutional and professional wellbeing of all academics.

Bullies - of all shades and description - assume that their victims will be frightened into silence. But that does not have to be the case. The intentional damaging of academic reputation should be confronted and 'outed'.

Jon, I agree as this situation does sound more like bullying/harassment behavior.  But again Ahmad, hopefully your institution has procedures in place for addressing such behavior.  Best wishes.

Dear @ Ahmad, I hope your colleague is not your direct head/boss...if so, I think the university/institution top management should be informed. Best wishes

Hi Ahmed I agree with Linda and Ra'ed comments, you should report to your head or to his head if he is the one....... good luck

Once you are sure that that is happening the reporting the matter is necessary and important. Confrontation is counterproductive.

It is also very important  to keep a personal (and departmental ) record of ALL the 'original' documents/decisions (dated as well)- by that I mean the documents that have not been 'tampered' by your colleague.

Better still if these documents/decisions are not personal (that is made by one person) then all involved should have copies of them. 

Thank you all for your comments and advice. I appreciate your contributions highly. Linda, you have touched it, I confronted this person face to face alone (I am convinced now, it was a mistake to do this without support from others). Currently I am in process to gain superiors support through convincing them to listen to my case. They used not to listen, but with the influence of others they started to. All what I need is fairness. 

Meanwhile, I decided to take it to the court once final documents become in my hand. Part of the case is high subjectivity of the allegations, where the person is playing. However, I am sure the legislative authorities will be fair in this regard and will ask opinions of fair academics. 

Thank you all and wish you will never suffer of similar situation

All the very best, Ahmed. It must have been a very distressing situation for you. I'm sure you've handled it really well. Jon

All the very best -Insha-Allah

Thanks Jon and and Aisha. 

Ahmad,

in 2008 my dissertation at the Eindhoven University of Technology was approved unanimously by the PhD committee. However, the PhD graduation was unilaterally cancelled one week before the planned date, after a group of senior "scientists" (among which the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft) had lobbied the university administration with "peer review reports" that concluded that my work was of insufficient scientific quality: in those reports, they passed off outright fabrications as the genuine findings of a serious investigation of the quality of my work.

Because scientists of two different universities were involved, I filed an official complaint at two universities: Eindhoven and Utrecht.

The Committee for Scientific Integrity (SCI) at Eindhoven saw what was going on, and they concluded that eleven (!) senior scientists had violated scientific integrity. However, such a report of the CSI has only the status of an advice to the administration, and in this case the administration simply decided to maintain the cancellation of the PhD.

The CSI at Utrecht, with the proof that 't Hooft fabricated his findings right before their nose, simply denied that any wrongdoing was involved. Here you should understand that reputations were involved: if they officially would have decided that 't Hooft (who is something like the Pope in the Netherlands) had violated integrity, then that would have damaged the reputation of Utrecht University also. So regardless of the proof that you deliver (and it was pretty clear-cut in my case), if they want to protect reputations they will use their power to do so (meaning: they will declare your complaint baseless - you have to know that a CSI metaphorically has the power to declare that a beef is good to eat even though it is crawling with maggots).

With that I want to say: don't expect fairness. There is this idealistic picture that science revolves around truth finding. While there are some individuals for whom science indeed is truth finding, a more realistic picture is that science revolves around reputations, self-interest, and social status. You should hold this latter picture in mind when you use official channels for your complaint. 

Another option is to blow the case wide open: contact a journalist. Those that falsify documents do not want others to know it, and if the case gets out in the open they can no longer control the process. This is another option that you have.

Another thing: don't be nice, don't show any respect for those who want to destroy your reputation. If he/she is lying, then use those words to describe it. If he/she fabricates stuff, then use that word.

If you want detailed advice for what to do, you may want to read the works of Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong (Australia): http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/

I also have one paper on this type of academic misconduct, maybe you can get some info from there too: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235659086_Scientific_Misconduct_Three_Forms_that_Directly_Harm_Others_as_the_Modus_Operandi_of_Mill%27s_Tyranny_of_the_Prevailing_Opinion

Good luck with your case,

Marcoen

Article Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others...

If you can get hold of a copy of the book 'Galileo's Middle Finger' by Alice Dreger, it may help you a great deal. She outlines a number of similar cases from the USA, and explains how people dealt with them - not always with success, and often with difficulty or setbacks at first, but I think you would find some useful thoughts and ideas in her work (it's very readable, too). Best of luck.

Marcoen,

Thanks for the interesting links. Although Ahmad's case seems personal, yours evokes broader questions. Given the current, ever-increasing intensity of competition in science - brought on by systematic reductions in government expenditures on research - there seems to be a growing problem with "peer review" - of both grant applications and publication. With less and less grant money up for grabs, incentives for particularly harsh judgement on competitor's applications have become more pronounced - a zero-sum perspective prevails. Whoever gets the grants, gets the results and the publications - thus the incentive to disparage others' applications and/or demand difficult or impossible additional dimensions to proposed (or completed) research. In principle, those overseeing funding allocation and those with prime editorial responsibility at scientific journals should watch for and discount such self-serving "peer reviews". Unfortunately, sometimes they miss it, don't get it, or their own interests are in play. All of which provides, as far as I am concerned, additional evidence of the misguided notion that competition (rather than collaboration) is the best way to advance scientific discovery. For a long time, researchers have hidden important understandings and results from each other - slowing the sharing of knowledge and the advance in discovery - in efforts to "be the first to publish" (and get recognition and grants), nowadays there seems to be more active efforts to undermine competitors. Any effort to move toward greater collaboration would benefit from expanding research funding but beyond that, a change in the organization and culture of the science community would seem to be in order.

Thanks to all for your consideration and contribution. I am currently collecting my documents and evidence to submit a complete list for the case. As some of the involved have access to this question, I am going to hold discussion until I finish with it. However, good news, some decision makers in my institution started to support my position and I am feeling comfortable in proceeding.