Shah Ketankumar 2036445 5-11-2012.pdf - General ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ato a customer. The documents show that number 11 was immediately followed by a “nosale”, which gave the opportunity to take out of the till the money representing theaccumulated apparent surplus in the till.BCDParticular 3 of the Allegation refers to two similar refund transactions identified inSchedule 2. There is again a typographical error in Schedule 2, because the refund inrespect of the second transaction, number 649, was £38.50, not £38.52. The differencefrom the refunds in Schedule 1 is that the private prescriptions concerned have beenproduced in evidence. They were retained by the Eastcote store, whereas if there hadbeen a genuine refund they would have been returned to the patient. Furthermore, theprescriptions were recorded in the store’s Private Prescription Record Book, and notstruck out as they would have been if they had not been dispensed. This demonstratesbeyond any doubt whatsoever that the recorded refunds were not genuine. TheCommittee finds that Mr Shah made the relevant till entries, for the same reasons as inrespect of Particular of Allegation 2. Particular of Allegation 3 is found proved.EThe Committee considered Particular of Allegation 7 in relation to Particulars 2 and 3.The transactions concerned were plainly inappropriate. They were contrary to KeyResponsibility 3 of the Code of Ethics. The Committee applied the R v Ghosh test ofdishonesty, and concluded that Mr Shah’s actions were dishonest by the standards ofordinary and reasonable people, and he knew them to be dishonest by those standards.FGParticular of Allegation number 4 arises out of the evidence of a member of staffMs Sudha Patel, who told the Committee that on 28 November 2005 she saw Mr Shahcomplete a till transaction and then throw the till receipt and another piece of paper intothe dispensary bin. She said that she and Ms Aruna Sinhal waited until Mr Shah went outto lunch and then searched the bin and found a till receipt for a transaction completed byoperator 555. This was the code number of Ms Sinhal herself. They also found a piece ofpaper which had been put into the till and printed with the word “void” and Ms Sinhal’scode 555.HT A REED& CO LTD01992-465900When the Committee first retired to consider the allegations of fact, it noted thatParticular of Allegation 4 did not accurately reflect the transaction demonstrated by the8- Day 6
ABCDdocuments. The Committee therefore invited comments from the parties as to whether itwould be fair to amend the wording of this Particular of Allegation. Mr Edwards onMr Shah’s behalf suggested that it would be unfair to do so because the Council had notaccurately set out its allegation at the beginning of the case, and Mr Shah’s case mighthave been conducted differently if the amendment had been made at an earlier stage, andhe said it might be necessary to recall Ms Sinhal to cross-examine her further about thepurpose of putting a blank piece of paper in the till to “void it”. Mr Millin on behalf ofthe Council suggested that there was no unfairness in making the amendment, because thefacts had been thoroughly investigated in the course of the hearing. The Committee hashad the advantage of being able to consult a transcript of the earlier part of the hearing. Itnotes that on Wednesday 11 July 2012, which was Day 2 of this hearing, Ms Sinhal wascross-examined by Mr Edwards concerning this matter. The Committee was satisfied thatthere would be no unfairness in amending the Particular of Allegation 4, which willtherefore be amended to read as follows:“On or around 28 November 2005, using the PIN number of another member ofstaff, you completed a sale for £13.92, after which you voided a blank piece ofpaper in lieu of a voucher, and retained £10 in cash.”EFThe reason for this amendment is that the documents show the original sale was in theamount of £13.92, but it was entered on the till as being for £3.92 in cash and £10 by wayof voucher. No voucher has ever actually been found. The Council’s case was thatMr Shah made it look as if a voucher had been received by putting a piece of paper in thetill, and voiding it, as would have been done if there had been a voucher. The result wasthat the till contained a cash surplus of £10.GHT A REED& CO LTD01992-465900The Committee finds this Particular of Allegation proved, as amended. It has nohesitation in accepting the evidence of Ms Sinhal and Ms Patel, which is corroborated inall respects by the documents which appear in the Bundle at pages 142 to 145. It notesthat the staff at the store had started to be suspicious, and were therefore observingMr Shah carefully. When cross-examined on behalf of Mr Shah, Ms Sinhal described theway in which she learned what had happened, as follows: “I had seen him on the till,because on that last particular – on the Monday, he said to me, ‘You go in the pharmacyand get on with the scripts’, and he was going to be outside on the counter. So I left him9- Day 6
Page 7 and 8: ABCthat a refund was paid in cash b
Page 9: ABCDEFGHT A REED& CO LTD01992-46590
Page 13: ABCsuggestion he handed over his wi
Page 16: ABHaving weighed all these matters,
Page 20 and 21: Athe profession. The Committee note
Page 22: AThe Committee has concluded that h

Shah Ketankumar 2036445 5-11-2012.pdf - General ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?