Orthopedic Doctor Challenges Termination Order at CAT for Not Prescribing Generic Medicines

The doctor was terminated for failing to prescribe generic medicines despite repeated instructions by the UT Health Department, Chandigarh
The doctor was terminated for failing to prescribe generic medicines despite repeated instructions by the UT Health Department, Chandigarh (Representative image: Pixabay)
The doctor was terminated for failing to prescribe generic medicines despite repeated instructions by the UT Health Department, Chandigarh (Representative image: Pixabay)

On March 11th, 2022, the UT Health Department of Chandigarh reportedly employed Dr. Hatesh Kumar as an orthopedic specialist on a contract basis, which was later extended till March 14th, 2024. 

According to sources, the doctor has claimed that, on January 5th, 2024, his contract was suddenly terminated with no reasoned order. He challenged this termination order through Counsel Brajesh Mittal at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh bench. He wanted an interim direction by staying the termination order until the final hearing.

In 2022, the National Medical Commission (NMC) advised doctors to prescribe medicines with generic/pharmacological names. (Representative image: Pixabay)
In 2022, the National Medical Commission (NMC) advised doctors to prescribe medicines with generic/pharmacological names. (Representative image: Pixabay)

The UT Health Department authority has argued that the doctor had failed to prescribe generic medicines despite repeated instructions through circulars to government hospitals and dispensaries. This violation of directives qualifies his actions as misconduct.

In 2022, the National Medical Commission (NMC) advised doctors to prescribe medicines with generic/pharmacological names. It also released a draft of prescription guidelines. The same was directed in the NMC RMP Regulations 2023 but has currently been put on hold by the commission.

Clauses 11 and 12 of the appointment letter give a brief overview of the termination conditions for the employee. According to Clause 11, either party can terminate the contract with a two-month notice period, submission of a two-month salary by the employee, or two-month financial compensation by the D. H. and F. W. Chandigarh administration for the employee. Clause 12 mentions that a notice is not mandatory if termination is due to unsatisfactory work or conduct.

The doctor strengthened his case by quoting orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court (Representative image: Unsplash)
The doctor strengthened his case by quoting orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court (Representative image: Unsplash)

However, the doctor strengthened his case by quoting orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court, wherein the courts held that a termination order for contractual employees could not be passed without conducting a regular inquiry and providing a chance of a case hearing for the employee.

The Chandigarh bench of CAT has noted that the Health Department had not conducted any inquiry before passing the termination order.

Sources have reported that CAT has declared a hold on Dr. Hatesh Kumar’s termination until further hearing, which is scheduled on May 3rd after considering the law settled by the Honourable M. P. High Court and the Honourable High Court of Odisha. The tribunal said there should have been an inquiry into the matter and an opportunity for a case hearing for the employee.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Dr. Yogeeta V H/MSM)

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
Medbound
www.medboundtimes.com