Doctor terminated for not prescribing Generic Medicine gets CAT relief

Chandigarh: Granting relief, the Chandigarh bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) recently stayed the termination order of a doctor, who was discontinued from service by the UT Health Department for violating the directives to prescribe generic medicines.

Agreeing to consider the plea by the doctor, the CAT bench listed the bench for further hearing on 03.05.2025 and mentioned in a recent order, "...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 by the next date. List this matter for further consideration on 03.05.2024."

The doctor approached the CAT bench challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 through which the contractual service of the applicant was terminated. The applicant sought an interim direction for staying the termination order dated 05.01.2024 pending the final order.

The applicant informed that he was appointed to the post of Orthopaedic Specialist on a contractual basis in the Health Department UT Chandigarh through the appointment order dated 11.03.2022. Later, his appointment was extended till 14.03.2024. 

However, the applicant claimed that his contract was terminated on 05.01.2024 and no speaking order was passed. Referring to this, he termed it to be "astigmatic and prejudicial" to his entire service career.

Also Read: Health Ministry asks NMC to reconsider its RMP regulations over Generic Medicines issue: Report

On the other hand, the UT Health Department authorities informed that the Chandigarh Administration has time and again issued circulars to the government hospitals and allied dispensaries to prescribe medicines with generic names and there was gross misconduct of the applicant regarding the same.

While terminating the service of the doctor, the authorities relied on Clauses 11 & 12 of the appointment letter. The concerned Clause 11 mentioned, "This Contract can be terminated by either side with two months' notice or in lieu of it by paying two month's remuneration by D.H. & F.W., Chandigarh Administration or by surrendering two months salary by the contractual employee."

Clause 12 mentioned, "No such notice shall be required if the termination happens to be on the ground of work and conduct having been found to be not satisfactory."

The Health Department authorities justified their action by highlighting that such complaints have also been filed against regular medical officers.

Meanwhile, the doctor relied on the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mazhar Khan Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. dated 24.07.2023. In that case, the HC bench had held that even in the case of termination of a contractual employee, the termination order cannot be passed without conducting a regular inquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing in case the termination order amounts to astigmatic in nature. He also relied on the order of the Orissa High Court in the case titled Bichitrananda Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. dated 21.02.2023.

While considering the matter, the Tribunal noted that even though the Health Department authorities claimed that there was gross misconduct of the doctor, no inquiry was conducted into the matter. "In view of law settled by the hon'ble M.P. High Court and the hon'ble High Court of Orissa (A-7 & A-8), at least an inquiry should have been conducted qua misconduct and opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the applicant," observed the Tribunal.

Therefore, the bench agreed to consider the matter and put a stay on the termination order.

The tribunal mentioned in the order, "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."

Medical Dialogues had last year reported that by taking action against a government doctor for prescribing branded medicines to patients despite the warning, the Health Department of Chandigarh repatriated the doctor on deputation for about nine years to his parent cadre in another State.

Back then, the UT Health Department was also taking action to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned doctor belonging to the Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh (GMSH-16).

Even the National Medical Commission (NMC) had earlier stressed upon the practice of prescribing generic names of medicines. Back in 2022, NMC released the draft Prescription guidelines and advised that doctors should prescribe medicines with "generic"/"non-proprietary"/"pharmacological" names only.

The NMC RMP Regulations 2023, which were later put on hold by the Commission, also directed the doctors to write the generic names of drugs on the prescription.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/cat-chandigarh-order-236034.pdf

Also Read: Doctor Prescribes Branded Medicine Despite warning, Chandigarh Health Dept repatriates him to parent cadre in another State