Right to Information Awareness Forum (RTIAF) has alleged that the department of Ayush (Ayurveda Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathy) has promoted Dr TS Gopalakrishna from drug inspector post to assistant drugs controller.

The promotion orders were passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) despite the recommendations from the Upa Lokayukta to the Karnataka government on charges of dereliction of duty and violation of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act 1954, Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the inspector.

According to JDS Pani, president, Right to Information Awareness Forum and secretary, Karnataka Indian Medicine Manufacturers Association, Karnataka department of health and family welfare and the State government ignored the allegations and promoted the candidate.

According to the report from the Upa Lokayukta dated March 7, 2007 under the section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984, Pani, is the complainant against Dr Gopalakrishna who failed to inspect the premises of the licensed Ayush manufacturers as required under the D&C Act. There was also undue delay in renewal of licenses, which resulted in serious hardship for the manufacturing units. The matter was referred to the notice of Dr BN Prakash, director, Karnataka Directorate of AYUSH, under Section 15 (3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act who brushed aside it as baseless.

Responding to the director, Dr Gopalakrishna stated that according to Section 8 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, the manufacturing premises were checked. Eight show cause and three warning notices were issued and it also included advertisements by doctors claiming cure for chronic ailments.

From the report findings by Upa Lokayukta which mentioned that there was no controlling authority under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the drugs inspector had the full powers to search and seize the advertisement or documents pertaining to the same, it is noted that the drugs inspector did not take action under section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the Upa Lokayukta opined that this allegation as substantiated.

With regard to inspection of manufacturing units, Dr Gopalakrishna in 2002 had checked only three units and medical shops of homeopathy. According to Rule 162, all Ayush units should undergo inspection twice a year. But Dr Prakash in his report stated that Dr Gopalakrishna had not done any inspection during 2002 though the statement by the drug inspector clearly pointed out that 'other works' prevented him from carrying out even one inspection was not acceptable.

The complainant Pani had furnished the list of units, which were not inspected by Dr Gopalakrishna, not less than twice a year, as required under Rule162 of D&C Act. Hence Upa Lokayukta proved that the allegations were proven.

With regard to delay in issuances of license of the units, the manufacturers were not prevented from continuing their work. Dr Gopalakrishna in his reply denied the allegation of delay in renewal of license and that none of the units had complained about the same. But the documents produced by Pani indicated that there was an inordinate delay in license renewal. In fact, the delay was more than one or two years. This led the Upa Lokayukta to uphold the allegations as true.

The Upa Lokayukta recommended disciplinary action against Dr Gopalakrishna for the above misconduct. The competent authority is required to intimate the action taken or proposed on the report within three months, which is June 6, 2007.