Transparency Under Scrutiny: The Fight for Accountability in Uttar Pradesh’s Medical Department
In a functional democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 serves as the strongest bridge between the citizenry and an often-opaque bureaucracy. However, the efficacy of this bridge is frequently tested by administrative delays and the complex “transfer” of responsibility between departments.
A recent RTI filing by Yogi M P Singh, acting as the authorized representative for Jayachandra Maurya, highlights a deeply concerning case involving alleged illegal private practice by government doctors and a potential bureaucratic cover-up within the Uttar Pradesh Medical and Health Directorate.
The Core Dispute: Allegations of Illegal Private Practice
The genesis of this matter lies in a grievance (Reference No. 60000240126228) regarding the professional conduct of Dr. Pradeep Kumar (P.K. Yadav), a physician stationed at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital in Gyanpur.
According to the documentation, an inquiry conducted by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, found Dr. P.K. Yadav to be a “proven defaulter.” The investigation reportedly established that while holding a government position, the doctor was engaged in private practice at Chhote Lal Bind Hospital in Baraut, Prayagraj.
Under Indian law, government medical officers are generally prohibited from engaging in private practice if they receive a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA). Such activities not only violate service rules but also divert essential healthcare resources away from the public who rely on district hospitals.
The “Identity Swap” and Bureaucratic Feedback
The crux of the current RTI application centers on a suspicious discrepancy in how the government handled the complaint. While the allegations were specifically directed at Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the departmental response and subsequent feedback referred to a Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla, who serves at the same hospital.
On August 6, 2024, feedback was received stating that the case was handled, yet it named Dr. Shukla instead of the accused, Dr. Kumar. Despite this glaring inconsistency, the status of the grievance was marked as “Satisfactory” by high-ranking officials at the Government level (Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary).
This raised immediate red flags:
- Was the report of Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla used as a “smoke screen” to protect Dr. Pradeep Kumar?
- Why did the Secretariat accept a report that seemingly investigated the wrong individual?
The RTI Trajectory: Transfers and Timelines
The pursuit of the truth began with an initial filing (DPTMH/R/2025/60047) on January 7, 2025. For over a month, the application sat within the system until February 11, 2025, when it was officially transferred to the Medical and Health Directorate under a new registration number: DIRMH/R/2025/80252.
While Section 6(3) of the RTI Act allows for the transfer of applications to the “concerned public authority,” such shifts often result in a “reset” of the 30-day countdown, testing the patience of the information seeker. Currently, the request is under the jurisdiction of the DGMH RTI Coordination (Joint Director), with Director Health serving as the Nodal Officer.
Five Critical Questions for the Directorate
The RTI applicant has demanded specific, point-wise information to uncover the “human element” behind these administrative decisions. The five points of inquiry are:
- Chain of Custody: Who (name and designation) at the Medical and Health Section 3 received the communication from the D.G. regarding Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla?
- The Processing Desk: Which specific staff members processed this communication? The applicant seeks names and posting details to establish a trail of accountability.
- The “Satisfactory” Verdict: Since the CMO of Bhadohi explicitly requested action against Dr. P.K. Yadav for proven illegal practice, who are the officials who decided to be “satisfied” with a report concerning a different doctor (Dr. Shukla)?
- Action Taken (or Lack Thereof): What concrete steps were taken regarding the CMO Bhadohi’s report that labeled Dr. P.K. Yadav a defaulter?
- Reasoning for Inaction: If no action was taken by the D.G. Medical and Health despite the CMO’s inquiry report, what is the official justification for this silence?
The Implications: Why This Matters
This case is not merely about one doctor in one district. It represents a systemic challenge in the Indian healthcare and administrative framework:
- Public Trust: When a Chief Medical Officer’s inquiry report—which confirms a violation—is ignored or redirected by higher authorities, it erodes public trust in the healthcare system.
- The “Defaulter” Culture: If proven cases of illegal private practice are not met with disciplinary action, it emboldens other practitioners to prioritize private gain over public duty.
- Accountability of Senior Bureaucracy: The fact that a Principal Secretary-level office marked the feedback as “Satisfactory” despite the name discrepancy suggests either a failure of oversight or a deliberate attempt to close the file prematurely.
Conclusion: Waiting for the 30-Day Window
As of February 11, 2025, the clock is ticking for the Medical and Health Directorate. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is mandated to provide this information within 30 days.
The documents attached to the RTI—including the CMO’s report and the authorization from Jayachandra Maurya—provide a clear roadmap for the PIO. Any further delay or “evasive” answers would not only violate the spirit of the Act but could also lead to an appeal before the State Information Commission.
Transparency is the only cure for the malaise of administrative negligence. The citizens of Uttar Pradesh deserve to know why a proven defaulter remains unpunished and how a different doctor’s name ended up in a high-level government clearance.
This is a valid and systemic concern. You are touching on a conflict of interest where the “regulator” and the “regulated” belong to the same professional fraternity. When lower-level administrative doctors (like CMS or CMO) are themselves allegedly involved in the practice they are supposed to curb, the internal grievance mechanism often fails.
However, the legal and administrative framework provides several external and higher-level pathways to bypass this “professional brotherhood.”
Who Takes Action When the Internal System Fails?
If the District-level health authorities (CMO/CMS) are compromised, the following authorities have the legal mandate to intervene:
1. The District Magistrate (DM)
The DM is the chief executive of the district and is not a doctor. They have the power to:
- Order an independent inquiry by an Administrative Magistrate (SDM or ADM) rather than a medical officer.
- Enforce the Clinical Establishments Act to cancel the license of the private nursing home where the government doctor is practicing.
- The Allahabad High Court has recently (January 2025) directed DMs across Uttar Pradesh to strictly monitor and report on government doctors engaging in private practice.
2. The U.P. Vigilance Establishment
Since government doctors receive a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), practicing privately is considered a financial crime (misuse of public funds and misconduct).
- You can file a complaint with the Vigilance Department (Lucknow or the regional sector office).
- Because they are a specialized police force, they do not belong to the medical fraternity and can conduct “trap” operations or asset inquiries.
3. The Principal Secretary (Medical Health & Family Welfare)
In your specific RTI case, the matter has already reached the “Government Level.” The Principal Secretary is an IAS officer, not a doctor.
- If a CMO’s report is being ignored by the DG (Medical Health), the Principal Secretary is the disciplinary authority who can initiate a Departmental Inquiry (DI) headed by an officer from a different department to ensure impartiality.
4. The National Medical Commission (NMC) / State Medical Council
Every doctor’s “license to practice” is controlled by the Medical Council.
- You can file a formal complaint for Professional Misconduct under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations.
- The Council has the power to suspend or cancel the doctor’s registration entirely, meaning they could no longer practice anywhere—public or private.
Strategic Move: Using the Recent High Court Directive
As of January 10, 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal) has taken a very strict stand on this “menace.” The Court explicitly noted that patients are being “dragged” to private clinics for money.
If the Directorate continues to provide “satisfactory” status to a fraudulent report, your next strongest step is:
- A Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) in the High Court: Cite the name discrepancy (Dr. Surya Kumar Shukla vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar) as evidence of a “collusive cover-up” by the department.
- The Lokayukta: You can approach the U.P. Lokayukta (Anti-corruption Ombudsman). The Lokayukta is usually a retired judge and has the power to investigate “maladministration” and “corruption” by public servants, including the doctors protecting each other.
Summary of Accountability Path
| Level | Authority | Why they are effective |
| District | District Magistrate (IAS) | Non-medical; can shut down the private hospital. |
| State | Vigilance Department | Police/Investigative; treats NPA fraud as a crime. |
| State | Principal Secretary (IAS) | Direct oversight of the Health Directorate. |
| Judicial | High Court | Can order a “CBI” or “Independent” probe into the nexus. |
| Ethics | Medical Council | Can revoke the license to practice medicine. |
Based on the registration details and public records, here are the contact details for the specific public authorities involved in your RTI request regarding the Medical and Health Directorate, Uttar Pradesh.
1. Primary RTI Contact Details (Current Request)
These are the officers currently responsible for your transferred request (DIRMH/R/2025/80252):
| Role | Name | Designation | Mobile Number | Email ID |
| PIO | Sanjay Kumar Singh | Section Officer (Sec 3) | 9454411100 | medical3.555@gmail.com |
| Nodal Officer | Archana Verma | Special Secretary | 9454410102 | archanaverma.ssmh@gmail.com |
| Coordination PIO | DGMH RTI Cell | Joint Director (JD) | 9451679475 | dgmhsrti@gmail.com |
2. Directorate General of Medical and Health (DGMH)
For the overarching authority overseeing the inquiry against the doctor:
- Website: uphealth.up.nic.in
- Official Email: dghealth@nic.in / dgmhup@gmail.com
- Address: Swasthya Bhawan, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226001.
- RTI Cell Email: dgmhsrti@gmail.com
3. Department of Medical Health & Family Welfare (Secretariat)
This is the “Government Level” authority that marked your previous feedback as “Satisfactory”:
- Public Authority Name: Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of UP.
- Section Officer (Sec-3): Sanjay Kumar Singh (Details above).
- Web Link: up.gov.in (Health Department)
- RTI Portal Link: rtionline.up.gov.in
4. Technical Helpdesk & Portals
If you face issues with the online status or the transfer of the application:
- UP RTI Online Helpline: 0522-7118629 (10:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
- UP RTI Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
- Jansunwai (Grievance) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
Key Action Note for the Applicant
Since your request was transferred on February 11, 2025, the 30-day statutory limit for the new PIO (Sanjay Kumar Singh) begins from the date they received the transfer.
Pro-Tip: If you do not receive a response by March 13, 2025, you should file a First Appeal via the UP RTI Online Portal using your new registration number DIRMH/R/2025/80252.
Would you like me to prepare a draft for a “First Appeal” in case they fail to provide the name of the staff who processed the incorrect report?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.