GPHC determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 1 year
The regulator’s term: suspension
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Nadeem Rafiq, pharmacist (GPHC 2055528).
Decision date: 2 October 2024 · Hearing started 1 October 2024 and ended 2 October 2024
This sanction period has elapsed.
In plain English
The GPhC committee decided that Nadeem Rafiq should be subject to the published outcome from a principal hearing in a misconduct case. The committee imposed a suspension for 12 months. It records fitness to practise as impaired. The official determination gives the committee's reasons, order wording, and any conditions attached to the decision.
Charges
The GPhC allegation section states: You, a registered pharmacist, whilst working at Buchans Chemist, 7 Perry Common Road, Erdington, 823 7AB 1. On 3 January 2023 you: 1.1. sent Colleague A a WhatsApp message, which stated “Don't sit next to me...u turning me on”. ADMITTED 1.2. Squeezed Colleague A’s left buttock. PROVED 2. Your actions at 1 above were sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated in that you acted in pursuit of: 2.1. sexual gratification PROVED 2.2. a future sexual relationship PROVED 3. On Colleague A’s first date back (on or around 14 February 2023) after the incidents mentioned at 1 above: 3.1. you shouted at Colleague A with words to the effect of “what the fuck are you talking about all this time”. ADMITTED 3.2. you shouted at Colleague A words to the effect of “ring him back i'll give him your fucking number -you can go out with him”. ADMITTED 3.3. You made comments whilst Colleague A was talking to Patient A to the effect that Patient A was Colleague A’s boyfriend. ADMITTED 4. On the second date back (on or around 15 February 2023) you subsequently worked with Colleague A after the incidents set out at 1 above, you: 4.1. Challenged Colleague A on why she had made “complaints” about you to “Ash”. PROVED 5. Your conduct at 3 and/or 4 above was: 5.1. intended to harass and/or intimidate Colleague A. PROVED 4 5.2. in retaliation for Colleague A raising concerns about you to others including senior colleagues at the pharmacy. PROVED By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.
Findings
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee held a principal hearing for Nadeem Rafiq in a misconduct case. The cover page records facts proved: Allegations 1.2, 2, 4 and 5 Facts proved by admission: Allegations 1.1 and 3 2 Facts not proved: None. It records fitness to practise as impaired. The committee imposed a suspension for 12 months.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published GPHC determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.