A doctor from Bukhara reported pressure after reporting possible corruption to management.

A doctor from Bukhara, Maksud Tairov, who serves as deputy director for clinical work at the Bukhara branch of the Republican Cardiology Center, reported pressure that arose after he reported possible corruption to management. As a result, a defamation lawsuit was filed against him.

According to Tairov, he merely forwarded complaints received from patients to management for review. However, he notes that the employee against whom the complaints were made not only learned the complainant's name but also received a video recording of Tairov's confidential conversation with the branch director.

This incident occurred shortly after the doctor returned to work. Tairov had previously been fired due to a labor dispute with management, but was reinstated through the courts after nearly a year of litigation.

Maksud Tairov spoke to Podrobno.uz about the situation in detail.

**A Year of Litigation and a Return to Work**

The current conflict was preceded by a lengthy labor dispute. Tairov stated that he had previously pointed out shortcomings in the organization of the treatment process to management, which he believed could negatively impact the quality of medical care. Following this, his relationship with the branch director deteriorated, and he was dismissed from his position as deputy director.

"I believed, and still believe, that this is truly part of my job. As deputy director for treatment, I must not turn a blind eye to problems that could impact the quality of medical care," Tairov explained.

Believing his dismissal to be illegal, the doctor filed a lawsuit. The trial lasted approximately a year.

According to the Bukhara Regional Court, Tairov demanded that the regional branch's orders be declared illegal and overturned, that he be reinstated, that he be paid wages for the period of forced absence, and that he be awarded 25 million soums in compensation for moral damages and 7 million soums for his legal representation fees.

The Interdistrict Civil Court initially rejected his claims. Tairov then filed an appeal, and the Bukhara prosecutor filed an appeal.

Ultimately, the Bukhara Regional Court partially overturned the first-instance decision and issued a new one. Tairov was reinstated, and his salary and compensation for moral damages were also awarded.

According to the doctor, he returned to his duties as deputy director approximately a month ago. It was after this return, according to Tairov, that the situation that subsequently became the subject of the investigation occurred.

**Patient Complaints and Conversations with Management**

After his reinstatement, Tairov says he began receiving oral complaints from patients about possible corruption on the part of some branch employees. These included several cardiologists and an ultrasound technician.

Tairov emphasizes that he did not conduct an investigation himself and did not claim that anyone had committed a corruption offense. He forwarded the information he received from patients to the director for review.

"I did not conduct my own investigation and did not publicly call anyone corrupt or a bribe-taker, nor did I claim that a specific individual's guilt had been proven. I simply passed on to the director the information I received from patients—information about possible corruption that needed to be investigated," the doctor explained.

Following this, Tairov spoke with the branch director. According to the doctor, he expected management to review the information and, if warranted, initiate an internal investigation. However, according to Tairov, the employee involved in the information subsequently learned who had reported it to management. Moreover, according to the doctor, the other party had a video recording of his conversation with the director.

Following this, the ultrasound doctor contacted the police. According to Tairov, the complaint accused him of slander and allegedly spreading allegations of bribery. The circumstances of this situation are currently being investigated by law enforcement agencies.

For Tairov, the important issue in this story is not only the fact that he made the complaint, but also the question of whether his request to management should have been kept confidential.

**What the law provides**

Article 28 of the Law "On Combating Corruption" provides for state protection for individuals who report corruption offenses. Information about such individuals is considered an official secret. Disclosure is permitted only in cases stipulated by law and with the written permission of the applicant and the head of the anti-corruption agency.

Furthermore, since June 23 of this year, an additional guarantee has been in effect for employees who report corruption. An employee who has justifiably reported a corruption offense in the government agency where they work cannot be subject to disciplinary action for two years without prior notification to the Anti-Corruption Agency.

However, the statutory guarantees do not apply to individuals who knowingly reported false information.

This is why Tairov believes it is necessary to determine whether his request to management falls under the statutory guarantees and whether confidentiality requirements were observed.

"I didn't disseminate this information among employees or publicly accuse anyone, but rather reported it directly to the institution's management for review. However, after that, my identity as the person who reported this information became known to an interested party," the doctor stated.

He also requests that it be determined on what basis the video recording of his conversation with the director was obtained by another party, whether legal requirements were observed, and whether there is a connection between his report of possible violations and the subsequent complaint against him.

**Doctor Fears New Labor Dispute**

According to Tairov, the current proceedings raise concerns, as he has already been through a protracted labor dispute and spent almost a year seeking reinstatement through the courts.

The doctor believes that what happened cannot be viewed solely as a personal conflict with his manager. After returning to his position, he said, he again began raising issues regarding the organization of the treatment process, compliance with established procedures, and the performance of his job responsibilities. Some of these complaints, Tairov claims, were sent to management in writing. The relevant documents, he claims, have been preserved.

"I'm not asking anyone to take my side in advance. I'm also not asking anyone to be declared corrupt or guilty without investigation. On the contrary, I'm interested in the most objective examination of this case," the doctor noted.

It was previously reported that Uzbekistan plans to introduce protective orders for people reporting corruption. This mechanism is expected to provide additional protection for whistleblowers from pressure and harassment in the workplace.