Pharmacist Asif Ghafoor, registration number 2058709, has been cleared of sexually harassing a patient by the GPhC, but given a warning over his professional conduct.

The regulator ruled this month that a patient's complaint about Mr Ghafoor was not "sufficiently reliable or convincing" to conclude that the allegations were proven.

But the GPhC's fitness to practise committee warned Mr Ghafoor, who admitted to conducting a physical examination on the methadone patient, that he should take "special care when dealing with vulnerable individuals". It added that pharmacists were not trained to undertake physical examinations "as part of a diagnostic procedure".

Mr Ghafoor's patient had claimed the she was a victim of sexual harassment and assault during three separate consultations in the early months of 2009. She told the council that, on the first occasion, Mr Ghafoor had inappropriately touched her during a physical examination at Elderslie Pharmacy in Renfrewshire. She reported that this had happened again during a second consultation and that, on the third occasion, Mr Ghafoor had attempted to put his hands inside her "underclothing".

But Mr Ghafoor explained he had first examined the area around the patient's kidneys because he believed she could have a urinary tract infection. Mr Ghafoor said the second consultation had only involved a discussion about the patient's weight and that the third consultation had never happened.

The fitness-to-practise committee said Mr Ghafoor's actions were "in no way sexually motivated", stressing the case was "essentially one person's word against another".

It highlighted that the patient could not "put herself forward as a person of good character" and that there were many inconsistencies in her statement.

The patient had "several convictions" for shoplifting and had "maliciously" damaged her lover's car in the past, the committee noted. It stressed that it would be "quite unjust and unfair" to assume the patient was incapable of telling the truth, but pointed out several inaccuracies in her statements, calling some of her evidence "vague and misleading".

The patient had given conflicting accounts of when the incidents took place and when she had reported them to her drug worker, as well as "changing her story" about the incidents, the committee said. Her initial statement said that the first incident had taken place before she was given methadone, but during cross-examination she admitted it was after her methadone dose. The patient also claimed Mr Ghafoor had pulled down a blind over the consultation room door when he conducted the examination, while Mr Ghafoor and other witnesses testified there was not a blind in the consultation room.

Mr Ghafoor's pharmacy staff also reported that the patient "never" complained to them after the consultations, and seemed "happy and contented".

But the council noted that some of the evidence from Mr Ghafoor's team was "expressed in identical terms" and suggested there was "a measure of collusion" in preparing their statements.

It concluded, however, that there were "too many inconsistencies" in the patient's evidence to accept her account of events.

The GPhC ruled there was "no sexual motive" for Mr Ghafoor's actions and that his fitness to practice was not impaired. But it did warn that pharmacists were "not competent to undertake a physical examination" and that Mr Ghafoor should recognise the limits of his competencies.