TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Chandigarh: CAT stays termination of doctor for ‘not prescribing generic medicine’

Ramkrishan Upadhyay Chandigarh, April 8 The Chandigarh bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has stayed a Health Department order terminating services of a doctor for allegedly not prescribing medicines with generic names and violating the UT administration’s direction. Dr Hatesh...
Advertisement

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Advertisement

Advertisement

Chandigarh, April 8

The Chandigarh bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has stayed a Health Department order terminating services of a doctor for allegedly not prescribing medicines with generic names and violating the UT administration’s direction.

Dr Hatesh Kumar, in an application filed through counsel Barjesh Mittal, challenged the order issued on January 5 whereby his contractual service has been terminated. The applicant has sought an interim direction for staying of his termination order pending final adjudication.

Advertisement

He said he was appointed on the post of orthopaedic specialist on contract in the Health Department vide appointment order issued on March 11, 2022, and the same was extended till March 14, 2024.

Respondents, in their reply, submitted that the Chandigarh administration has time and again issued circular to government hospitals and allied dispensaries to prescribe medicines with generic name, and there was gross misconduct on the part of the applicant regarding the same.

Kumar’s counsel Mittal argued that the termination order can’t be passed without conducting regular inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing. He has also relied upon judgments of high courts in this regard.

After hearing arguments, the CAT bench said: “In the short reply, it has been specifically submitted by the respondents that there is gross misconduct on the part of the applicant, and we have noticed that no inquiry has been conducted.

“In view of law settled by the MP High Court and the High Court of Orissa, at least an inquiry should have been conducted qua misconduct and opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the applicant. Prima facie, we are of the view that the applicant has made out a case. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to continue the applicant in service till the next date. Respondents may file detailed reply on May 3, the next date of hearing.”

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement