In Profession news

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

A superintendent pharmacist who made repeated proposals of marriage to a teenage apprentice worker has been suspended for 12 months.

Abdul Malique Khalisadar was suspended following a remote fitness to practise hearing that concluded on September 3 and established he had exploited a power imbalance between him and the young apprentice through behaviour that amount to harassment.

Aura Pharmacy in north London was partly staffed with pharmacy apprentices doing level 2 and 3 courses at a local college, with Mr Khalisadar acting as the main point of contact.

In the spring of 2025, a 17-year-old referred to in the fitness to practise hearing report as Employee A was placed at the pharmacy.

Employee A alleged that from around March 30 that year, Mr Khalisadar began making inappropriate advances towards her. This pattern of behaviour allegedly began with him taking her to the consultation room after the pharmacy closed and asked if she would marry him after she turned 18. She described feeling shocked and hoping that her non-committal answer would discourage him.

Over the following weeks, he repeatedly made comments directed at Employee A to the effect of ‘We’d be perfect together’ when he was out of earshot from other colleagues, and asked her to keep these conversations secret.

Mr Khalisadar, who was in his fifties and married with two children, also suggested that the pair could run the pharmacy together, telling her: “You could take the whole store.”

He sent WhatsApp messages on a near-daily basis, with the GPhC’s evidence bundle including messages stating “I can talk to your dad. One to one” and “Can you see yourself being my wife?”

On April 22, 2025, Mr Khalidasar told Employee A her work was “good” but “not perfect” and said he was considering asking the college to arrange an alternative placement for her. In his witness statement to the GPhC, he said he did this because his behaviour had made it difficult to work together but acknowledged it “could be perceived as retaliatory and cooercive”.

Later that day, Employee A’s father emailed the college to raise a complaint about Mr Khalidasar’s behaviour When the college’s safeguarding officer raised this with him, he accepted he had made a proposal of marriage and apologised for his “miscalculated” and “out of character” behaviour.

In her evidence, Employee A said she had been scared about reporting this behaviour prior to this as she worried no one would believe her.

When the fitness to practise proceedings began, Mr Khalidasar told the GPhC he did not plan to defend his “abhorrent and unprofessional action” and that he was “truly ashamed and sorrowful of my behaviour”.

He admitted to all allegations against him, except one concerning whether he had groomed Employee A. The FtP committee ultimately found his conduct did not amount to grooming.

The committee found that Mr Khalidasar was “on the start of his journey” to developing insight into his misconduct, commenting that he had not fully reflected on the impact on the young apprentice or why he behaved as he did towards her.

It also identified a pattern of failing to confront problematic issues, such as not informing the college that he was suspended – which the committee considered was done to avoid losing placement students, who were cheaper for the pharmacy to employ.

However, it took note of his remediation efforts, which have included CPD and therapy sessions, and said his misconduct “can be remediated”.

It imposed a 12-month suspension order and advised him to provide evidence of more thorough reflection at a later review hearing.