Three senior doctors from the Neurosurgery department of the Delhi government-run Lok Nayak Hospital are facing administrative scrutiny for what hospital sources describe as frequent and prolonged absences from duty, raising concerns about staffing shortages, patient care continuity, and adherence to service rules.
According to highly placed sources, the doctors are alleged to have taken extended leave without adequate prior intimation or clear documentation, even as they continue to draw full government salaries. The matter has raised concerns within the hospital administration, particularly given Lok Nayak Hospital’s heavy patient load from across Delhi and neighbouring States.
Sources also claimed that some of the absences may be linked to associations with private medical establishments — an allegation that, if established through inquiry, would amount to a violation of government service norms. Officials, however, stressed that these claims are part of an ongoing administrative examination and have not yet been formally proven.
Rules and allowances
Under the Delhi Health Service (Allopathy) Rules, 2009, doctors appointed as regular employees in Delhi government hospitals under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) are prohibited from engaging in private practice.
In lieu of this restriction, eligible doctors are paid a Non-Practising Allowance (NPA) as part of their salary. Any violation of this condition is considered misconduct and may result in disciplinary action under applicable conduct rules, including a departmental inquiry or suspension.
Hospital officials said that if the alleged conduct is substantiated, it could have serious service and disciplinary implications.
Records examined
Patriot has accessed internal leave records and documents relating to the three doctors. While the publication has details of their names and specific designations, it has chosen to withhold their identities in the absence of completed disciplinary proceedings.
According to the records, one doctor from the Neurosurgery Department availed 147 days of leave in 2024 and 145 days up to October in 2025, raising questions about availability during key operational periods.
Month-wise data show that the doctor’s absences increased from early 2024. After five days of leave in December 2023, he was absent for 16 days in January 2024, nine days in February, 16 days in March, and 12 days in April. The pattern continued with eight days in June, 15 days in July and 12 days in August. September 2024 recorded 19 days of absence, followed by five days in October and a peak of 25 days in November.
Records further show that five days in December 2024 were marked as “unknown”, indicating that no formal leave status was available with the department.
The trend continued into 2025. The doctor reportedly took 15 days of leave in January, over 19 days in February and 27 days in March. April shows 15 days again marked as “unknown”, while October records list him as “absent”, with no further information available to the department.
Hospital officials said repeated instances of “unknown” status and prolonged absence without clear documentation point to serious gaps in attendance monitoring and internal reporting mechanisms.
Procedural gaps
The leave records also indicate frequent and extended absences by a doctor from the Neurology Department, who reportedly availed 102 days of leave in 2024 and 119 days in 2025.
Her absences began in December 2023 with five days and continued into 2024 with 26 days in January, four days in February and seven days in March. Records show she took 23 days of leave in May 2024, 21 days in June and seven days in July. August, September and November each recorded six days of leave, while October 2024 saw a sharp increase to 17 days.
In 2025, the doctor reportedly took 12 days of leave in January, four days in February, 15 days in March and 10 days in June. Documents also indicate that several leave intimation emails were routed through the OPD Neurosurgery office rather than processed through the prescribed departmental channels.
Hospital officials said such irregular routing made it challenging to maintain accurate attendance records and ensure accountability.
Documentation anomalies
Documents reviewed by Patriot further flag procedural irregularities in this doctor’s case, including leave taken between July 18 and July 29, 2025, which was reportedly submitted directly to the Medical Director’s office as BL (brief leave), without being forwarded or endorsed by the concerned department.
Additional gaps were noted in August 2025, when leave was reportedly applied for without a formal leave form being submitted. Further anomalies were recorded in September 2025, after which the doctor was shown as “on leave till September 23, 2025”.
Her status after that date remained unclear before she was marked absent for the entire month of October 2025, with no documentation available with the department.
Hospital sources said the patterns reflected systemic weaknesses in leave approval processes and enforcement of service norms, particularly in cases involving senior faculty.
“When senior doctors are repeatedly absent, and records are incomplete, it becomes difficult to ensure patient safety, manage rosters or fix responsibility,” one official said, adding that the burden often shifts to junior doctors and residents.
Third case
According to sources, the third doctor — who holds a senior administrative position at Lok Nayak Hospital — is alleged to be running a personal clinic and consulting patients there in the evenings. Officials said this aspect would also be examined if a formal inquiry is expanded.
Patriot independently verified, during a ground visit, that one of the doctors was associated with organisations outside Lok Nayak Hospital. However, officials cautioned that the nature and permissibility of such associations would have to be determined through due process.
Inquiry initiated
The matter has now formally entered the stage of administrative scrutiny. On October 30, 2025, Dr Chandra Shekhar, Head of the Department of Neurosurgery, wrote to the section officer seeking initiation of a formal inquiry against the first two doctors for alleged administrative and service-related lapses.
The letter notes that the alleged violations pertain to established service rules and procedural norms and may amount to misconduct under applicable regulations. It also records that the concerned doctors have been asked to submit written explanations within the stipulated timeframe; failing which, further action may be initiated as per the rules.
Hospital sources said the inquiry would examine leave records, attendance data, routing of applications and any potential conflicts with service conditions, including restrictions on private practice.
No response yet
Despite repeated attempts, Patriot received no response from the Medical Director’s office. Efforts to contact the three doctors for their version also remained unsuccessful.
The online version of this report will be updated if and when responses are received.
