From Microbiologist to Pharma Leader : Hemanth Panasa on FDA Audits, Contamination Control & Aseptic Failures

Pharma Now: Today’s guest is a frontline defender of one of the most unforgiving spaces in pharma: sterile and biologics quality. A microbiologist by training with more than 26 years of global experience, he has led high-risk sterile operations, faced the toughest regulators, and built inspection-ready cultures across organisations. From FDA audits to aseptic discipline, he lives by the philosophy that zero-error thinking begins with culture.

Please welcome Mr Hemanth Panasa, Steriles and Biologics Quality Leader at Cipla.

Sir, you’ve been in the industry for more than 26 years now, almost three decades. Our audience is very keen to know about your journey. How did it all begin 25 years ago?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: It’s interesting because, in many ways, I feel this was my eventual destiny. I completed my BSc in Microbiology and then went on to do my MSc in Microbiology. But after post-graduation, we were not very clear about what kind of opportunities would open up for us.

We knew microbiology was a promising field. The media, publications, and industry discussions always highlighted the opportunities around it. We also knew there were scientific sectors where microbiology had strong applications. Still, we didn’t really understand how the corporate world worked or how careers in the industry would unfold.

After my MSc, I started working as a Research Associate on an agricultural biotechnology project. It wasn’t core pharma, but I worked there for a few years as a Project Associate. Still, I have always aspired to enter the pharmaceutical industry.

I come from a small town near Hyderabad, and at that time, I was working in an agricultural research setup. But I was constantly exploring opportunities across the country because I knew I wanted to move into the pharma industry.

Then one day, what I would call a miracle happened. An opportunity came from Delhi. It was the first time I was considering such a move. I had visited Delhi once as a student, but I didn’t know much about the place. The company interviewed me over the phone and asked me to come to Gurgaon for a personal interview.

I still remember not knowing much about Gurgaon at that time. But I went there, attended the interview, and got selected. That became my first pharmaceutical company. If you count only pharma, it has been around 23–24 years, but overall, it’s been nearly 26 years since my post-graduation.

The company was Baxter, an American multinational pharmaceutical company and one of the most respected in the world. At that time, they had a state-of-the-art facility, and I was among the initial group of people who started there. That’s where my real journey began, and honestly, I never had to look back after that.

I always wanted to do something meaningful in microbiology, and pharma attracted me because it was connected to healthcare. Microbiology has applications across many industries, but pharma was booming at that time, and it felt like the right place for me.

Baxter gave me an incredible opportunity. In the early 2000s, injectable manufacturing was not yet widespread in India, and GMP systems for sterile injectables were still evolving. Working there gave me exposure to sterile processes, validations, and high-quality systems from the very beginning of my career.

I worked as a microbiologist and gained extensive experience in sterile operations. I participated in multiple validations and got exposure to processes that shaped my understanding of quality and compliance. Even today, I carry lessons from my time at Baxter in 2002 and 2003.

That foundation became extremely strong for me, and I’m genuinely happy that my pharma journey started there. From there, I moved across different companies, gained broader exposure, and eventually grew into leadership roles.

What made Baxter truly different was its approach to work. At that time, being in my first company, I didn’t fully realise how unique their culture was. But later, after working across India and internationally and visiting many companies and facilities, I truly understood the level of passion and the systems they had built.

I saw how they transferred technologies and businesses from one country to another, expanded operations, and structured their processes. It was remarkable, especially for that period.

What was even more interesting was that they recruited mostly freshers. It was a relatively small plant with around 100 employees, and nearly 85–90 of them were recent college graduates. Only a handful were experienced professionals or global experts.

The workforce included diploma holders, engineers and science graduates; almost everyone was fresh out of college. Since there wasn’t enough experienced talent available in sterile manufacturing at the time, Baxter hired young talent and trained them in accordance with its own systems and standards.

They built people from scratch and trained them exactly the way they wanted the systems to operate. Baxter was a company known for replicating technologies and processes globally, and their training standards reflected that mindset.

Back in 2002, we were already talking about Six Sigma and lean management practices, concepts that many companies in India had not even adopted. That early exposure helped me visualise the industry differently from the very beginning of my career.

Pharma Now: Do you remember the first truly high-stakes sterile inspection of your career? And what did it teach you about fear, preparation, and leadership?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: When you say “high-stakes,” the first thing that comes to mind is my time at Baxter. We used to undergo corporate audits, and even though they were not regulatory inspections, they were extremely stringent.

At that time, we were a new sterile facility, and most of us were fresh graduates with no prior experience handling audits. There was immense pressure because the company took these audits very seriously. If the corporate auditors were not satisfied, they could even delay operations or keep the site closed until standards were met.

I was working as a microbiologist at the time, and one of the auditors was also a microbiology expert. For four to five days, he practically sat in my lab evaluating every aspect of our work. That was my first major audit experience. Even though it wasn’t from a regulatory agency, it felt like a very high-stakes inspection for us.

But honestly, it turned out to be an incredible learning experience.

After that, I faced many inspections from the WHO, European regulatory agencies, US agencies, and several other stringent regulators. Initially, I participated in inspection teams, but eventually I started leading inspections myself.

One of the most complex inspections I handled came nearly 8–10 years into my journey. It involved five agencies together with seven inspectors. There was the US FDA, MHRA, Health Canada, TGA, and CDSCO, all conducting a joint inspection under a shared protocol.

It was one of the most challenging inspections of my career because all the inspectors were highly reputed experts in their respective agencies. I was leading the inspection from the front end, and it was an intense experience.

Over the years, I’ve probably handled around 20–25 inspections involving major global regulatory agencies. The outcomes have been a complete roller coaster. Some inspections were highly successful, resulting in zero observations. Others eventually led to warning letters and major remediation projects.

So inspections teach you everything: success, failure, pressure, resilience, and accountability.

Every inspection, whether successful or difficult, teaches you something new. That’s the mindset I’ve always carried forward.

I think managing complex situations became one of my strengths over time. Looking back on my career, I spent at least 12–15 years in crisis management environments. Either I was working on a greenfield project with aggressive timelines, handling remediation at a site under a warning letter, or preparing a newly developed site for its first inspection. But I genuinely enjoyed those challenges.

One thing I always practised during such projects was complete transparency within teams. When you’re working in complex cross-functional environments, keeping information open is extremely important.

Timely communication and real communication make a huge difference during crises. I always believed in putting everything on the table, discussing the pros, cons, risks, and concerns openly so that everyone remains informed and aligned.

Another important learning came from microbiology itself. Even though I later moved into quality systems, compliance, and validation roles, my microbiology background continues to shape how I think. Microbiology teaches you to visualise things you cannot physically see. It trains you to forecast, anticipate, and predict outcomes based on scientific understanding.

That ability to anticipate risk and visualise outcomes became one of my biggest strengths in leadership and quality management. When you combine that with the right people, proper communication, and a strong team culture, it becomes much easier to navigate difficult situations and achieve results.

Of course, there were phases when we worked extremely hard, 12 to 14 hours a day sometimes. But the motivation always came from seeing results. Even if success took longer than expected, the effort eventually paid off. I always say that success itself becomes the biggest motivation.

And beyond personal success, one thing I truly enjoyed throughout my career was sharing that success with others. When your team grows, learns, and feels proud of what they achieved together, that becomes an even bigger source of satisfaction.

At the end of the day, the best thing we can leave behind is our legacy: training more people, building capable teams, and preparing others to carry on the work.

There’s a line from Game of Thrones that I really like: “We are here to make the world better than what we received.”

I genuinely believe that’s the ultimate goal. You don’t always have to do extraordinary things. If every person simply makes their workplace, team, or environment better than how they found it, that itself creates a meaningful impact.

Pharma Now: Sir, what has been the most difficult quality decision you’ve had to make, one that directly impacted production or business?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: That’s a very interesting question because every quality professional eventually faces situations like this.

At the end of the day, quality and business have to go hand in hand. If there is no business, there is no compliance. And if there is no compliance, the business cannot sustain. Both are equally important.

But despite working toward the same larger goal, quality and business must function independently. They cannot operate as partners with the same objectives. Each has its own responsibilities, accountability, and decision-making process.

Quality professionals have to think and evaluate risks independently, and sometimes make very difficult decisions to protect the business in the long run.

I often compare it to parenting. A child may not always like the decisions parents make, but parents still make them for the child’s protection. Similarly, quality teams sometimes have to make decisions that may not look favourable in the short term but are necessary to protect the organisation.

One of the toughest decisions I made was joining a large greenfield pharmaceutical site. At that time, the company was preparing for an FDA inspection after making submissions, and everyone was working aggressively toward readiness. I was brought in and asked to evaluate the situation and provide my perspective.

After spending about a month assessing the systems, I told the management something they did not expect to hear: “Forget about the inspection for now. We are not ready.”

I said we needed at least three to six months just to correct the baseline systems and documentation before even thinking about inspection readiness.

That statement created a major shock across the organisation because the inspection was expected at any time. People questioned how we could suddenly pause activities, defer the inspection, and step back after so much preparation and investment. As a new person in the organisation, it was one of the most difficult stands I had to take.

I had to explain my reasoning in detail, demonstrate the risks clearly, and convince the leadership why proceeding in that condition would be dangerous. There were differences of opinion, resistance, and a lot of pressure.

But eventually, the management supported the decision. We delayed the inspection by nearly nine months and used that time to strengthen the baseline systems, documentation, and overall compliance structure. In the end, the inspection concluded successfully with zero observations.

That experience taught me that conviction is critical in quality leadership. First, you need the courage to speak the truth. Then you need the ability to articulate it clearly. But most importantly, once leadership trusts your decision, you must deliver the results. That is the real responsibility.

There were moments during that period when I genuinely felt I could lose my job because of how strongly I pushed for delaying the inspection. But sometimes you have to accept that possibility if you truly believe you are protecting the company.

Yes, delaying an inspection by nine months has a huge business impact. But I strongly believe the consequences of proceeding unprepared would have been far worse. I have seen companies in the sterile injectable space struggle for five or even ten years because of poor first impressions during regulatory inspections.

Your baseline matters immensely. The first impression regulators form of your systems can define the site's future.

Sometimes companies rush into inspections, receive major observations immediately, and then spend years trying to recover credibility. That becomes a far more vulnerable situation than taking a temporary delay and correcting the fundamentals properly.

So, irrespective of short-term criticism or resistance, quality professionals sometimes have to take a stand. There have also been many occasions where we had to reject batches despite business pressure.

One multinational company I worked with had a policy that I deeply respected. If the site quality rejected a batch, that decision could never be reversed at higher levels.

If the site quality approved a batch, higher management could still reject it. But once anyone in the quality chain rejected a batch, there was absolutely no further negotiation. Even global quality leadership could not overturn the rejection.

That policy eliminated the possibility of business pressure influencing quality decisions. It empowered quality professionals to act conservatively when required, without fear of escalation or negotiation.

Of course, sometimes wrong decisions can happen, but companies prefer that risk over the possibility of releasing a potentially compromised product into the market. And honestly, in terms of quality, being conservative is often the right approach because, ultimately, you are protecting patients and the company itself.

I always say that quality professionals are not there only to deliver good news. Our responsibility is to present the factual situation, whether people like it or not. That is the discipline I have always tried to practice throughout my career.

Pharma Now: Sir, from your experience, where do most aseptic failures actually originate? Is it from systems, people, or culture?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: It’s very difficult to pinpoint aseptic failures to just one factor because, in reality, it is always a cumulative and cascading effect.

Culture, people, and systems are deeply interconnected.

People create culture itself. It is essentially the value system that organisations build over time and continue to follow. Once that culture is established, it shapes practices and behaviours for future generations within the organisation.

At the same time, culture can either encourage good practices or unknowingly normalise bad practices. So it becomes difficult to separate people from culture because one constantly influences the other.

There are always exceptional individuals who challenge their environment and achieve extraordinary outcomes despite difficult circumstances. We often see this in inspiring stories and biopics. In those cases, we credit the individual, not the culture.

But when we talk about organisations at scale, especially in sterile manufacturing, culture plays a major role in shaping people’s behaviours. So if I have to answer directly, aseptic failures are usually a combination of all three: culture, people, and systems.

However, when we specifically talk about contamination in sterile injectables, the predominant source in most validated environments is human behaviour. In a well-designed, sterile system, people and their behaviours pose the greatest contamination risk.

But even then, before blaming people, we have to evaluate the systems around them.

What kind of automation exists?

What kinds of gowning systems, training programs, supervision, and talent-selection processes are in place?

How effectively are operators facilitated to perform correctly?

All these factors matter because systems heavily influence outcomes. And again, the level of investment in systems is driven by organisational culture.

That’s why I personally believe that if we truly want long-term improvement, the biggest focus should be on systems. Culture changes over generations. People will always make mistakes. But systems can create consistency.

The only sustainable way to reduce risk is through stronger systems supported by science and automation.

Over the years, the industry has evolved significantly compared to where we were 20 years ago. That progress happened because organisations committed themselves to building better systems. Unless we continue strengthening systems, culture alone cannot solve the problem, and people alone cannot remain perfect forever.

The real enabler is science-backed systems.

Pharma Now: Do you remember any example where people’s behaviour directly affected the entire ecosystem? Maybe an aseptic failure or challenge you faced?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: Yes, definitely. One particular incident had a huge impact on me professionally.

At one point in my career, we were handling one of the largest media-fill failures I had experienced. I had joined that multinational company only a few months earlier as Compliance Head, and the organisation was already undergoing a major transformation journey.

The leadership team comprised a mix of Indian and American professionals, and we were working to strengthen systems and practices.

Then suddenly, we encountered a major media fill failure.

What made it unusual was that it was a gross failure, but we could not initially identify any equipment-related issue. Normally, when you see a large media fill failure, you expect a mechanical problem, maybe a leakage, equipment breach, or some major process failure.

In cases involving operator practices, you may usually see one or two contaminated units. But this situation was different.

We investigated extensively and eventually traced the issue back to human behaviour. The failure ultimately originated from a personal mistake, not from equipment failure. What disturbed us even more was not just the mistake itself, but what happened afterwards.

The individual involved did not openly report the mistake. At the same time, others who were aware of the incident did not immediately escalate it.

That became the real learning.

People can make mistakes. That is human. But culture determines whether those mistakes are hidden or openly discussed.

A weak culture protects errors. A strong culture exposes them early.

That incident taught us a great deal about behavioural patterns, especially under stress.

Everyone knew the right practices. The systems were available. The procedures existed. But one moment of poor judgment triggered a major issue.

Even today, when you look at regulatory observations in sterile facilities, many organisations have world-class infrastructure and advanced systems, yet surprising human errors still occur.

That reality never completely disappears.

No matter how much training you provide, there will always be individuals capable of making unexpected mistakes. The goal is not to assume perfection. The goal is to build systems and cultures that detect and address problems before they become critical.

That is where leadership becomes important.

Leaders must create surveillance systems, proactive indicators, and open communication environments where issues are discussed transparently rather than hidden.

Because once people become afraid to speak openly, the organisation becomes vulnerable.

That particular episode taught us a lot about stress behaviour, accountability, and organisational culture.

I often say that, rather than focusing solely on correcting individuals, organisations should build systems that shape culture, because culture ultimately shapes people’s behaviour.

Pharma Now: Sir, what are the top two gaps you still see in real-world contamination control despite advanced cleanrooms and isolators?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: Advanced cleanrooms and isolators are definitely one of the biggest advancements in contamination control. They have significantly improved sterile manufacturing practices.

But isolators are not a complete solution to contamination.

They come with their own challenges, decontamination, integrity maintenance, upkeep, automation requirements, and the level of operator awareness needed to manage them effectively.

Yes, isolators provide a major advantage over conventional filling lines, but they still depend heavily on discipline and operational consistency.

People often assume that you can simply load everything into an isolator, perform decontamination, and automatically eliminate contamination risks. That is not how it works.

How you clean the isolator before decontamination, how materials are segregated and how surfaces are prepared all of these factors directly impact the effectiveness of the decontamination cycle.

I usually compare it to a dishwasher at home.

You cannot just throw dirty utensils with food debris into a dishwasher and expect them to come out perfectly clean. You still need to prepare, rinse, and properly load. Only then does the dishwasher work effectively.

An isolator is very similar. It is not a ready-made solution for contamination control.

It still requires strong systems, disciplined practices, and consistent upkeep.

That is one major challenge.

The second challenge is that, despite modern advancements, a large part of the industry still operates conventional filling lines with significant manual intervention.

Even companies that do not have full isolator technology are now increasingly using RABS systems, but human intervention remains a major factor.

There is still a huge amount of work needed around operator practices, monitoring, governance, and contamination awareness in these environments.

I remember an interesting discussion with a very renowned MHRA inspector who was also one of the authors of European regulations. During an inspection, he asked us a very thought-provoking question.

He asked, “Why do microbiologists work only in QC and QA? Why don’t they work in production?”

That question stayed with me for a long time.

In most sterile manufacturing companies, microbiologists are concentrated in quality functions. But when it comes to contamination control, production operations are equally critical.

Why shouldn’t microbiologists work directly on sterile production lines where contamination risks originate?

That made me realise that the industry still operates in silos.

Typically:

1. B.Pharm or M.Pharm professionals move into production,
2. microbiologists move into QC or QA,
3. Engineers remain within maintenance and engineering functions.

But contamination control is inherently multidisciplinary. I genuinely believe that sterile manufacturing would benefit from greater integration of cross-functional talent. Microbiologists should also work in production, especially in sterile injectables and biologics.

In biologics manufacturing, we already see this to some extent because fermentation and purification processes naturally involve microbiological understanding. But in fill-finish facilities, it is still relatively uncommon.

Similarly, engineers should not remain limited only to maintenance roles. Engineering expertise can add significant value to production, quality systems, automation, and contamination-prevention strategies.

The future of contamination control depends not only on technology but also on building diverse, cross-functional talent pools.

Leadership teams need to encourage rotations, multidisciplinary exposure, and broader competency development instead of restricting professionals to traditional departmental boundaries. That, in my opinion, can create much stronger contamination-control cultures in the long run.

Pharma Now: What do you enjoy most about being a microbiologist?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: I’m genuinely very proud to be a microbiologist.

Interestingly, looking back at my career, I practised microbiology hands-on for only a relatively short period. Between my BSc, MSc, and a few years of practical microbiology work, I spent about 8–10 years directly in laboratory microbiology.

The remaining 20 years were spent in quality assurance, compliance, validation, remediation, leadership, and management roles.

I was no longer regularly handling plates, cultures, or laboratory testing. But the science and mindset I learned through microbiology stayed with me permanently. Microbiology teaches you how to visualise things you cannot physically see. That ability became one of the biggest strengths in my professional journey.

Even today, if someone discusses compressed gas systems, steam-line connections, autoclave load configurations, or contamination risks, I can immediately visualise the process and anticipate possible outcomes. That intuition came from microbiology.

It trained me to assess situations scientifically, think ahead, and make quality decisions even without physically touching or observing every detail.

That is what I value the most about being a microbiologist: the ability to visualise risk, understand invisible systems, and apply that thinking in day-to-day decision-making.

Pharma Now: What is the most common reason sterile sites fail US FDA or EU inspections today? Is it data integrity, environmental monitoring lapses, or human behaviour?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: I think the industry has evolved significantly over the last decade.

Around 10–15 years ago, many sterile facilities struggled primarily because of poor infrastructure, weak facility design, and inadequate systems. There wasn’t enough focus on contamination-control architecture, process design, or long-term facility upkeep.

But over the last decade, companies have made major investments in this space.

Today, we see state-of-the-art facilities, highly automated filling lines, robotics, single-use systems, electronic batch manufacturing records, e-logbooks, and stronger digital data-integrity controls.

A tremendous amount of effort and investment has gone into improving infrastructure, systems, and technology. However, despite all these advancements, human behaviour remains one of the biggest challenges. No matter how advanced the technology becomes, sterile manufacturing still ultimately depends on people.

Earlier, an activity may have involved ten manual steps. Today, automation may have reduced that to three steps, or even one. But that final step still has to be executed correctly by a human being. Unlike some industries that have moved toward near-complete automation, pharma still cannot eliminate human intervention.

In sectors like banking and IT services, automation has completely transformed operations. Years ago, people would stand in queues all day for basic banking transactions. Today, most activities happen digitally.

Similarly, industries are already developing driverless vehicles and highly autonomous systems. But pharmaceutical manufacturing, especially sterile injectables, is different.

We cannot fully eliminate human involvement, nor can we test every unit to confirm whether it is absolutely right or wrong.

That makes the industry fundamentally dependent on human behaviour, discipline, and consistency. And that remains one of the biggest challenges in sterile manufacturing today.

Even when I review observations issued to some of the best facilities globally, many findings still relate to operator behaviour, inconsistent practices, poor understanding, or procedural lapses. But again, I don’t believe it is fair to blame people alone.

Whenever human behaviour becomes a recurring issue, it usually reflects deeper weaknesses in systems, training structures, leadership oversight, or organisational culture.

That is why contamination control can never depend on just one factor. Strong systems, strong culture, and disciplined people must all work together. Only then can sterile facilities consistently operate successfully.

Pharma Now: What has been the most stressful phase of your career in steriles?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: One of the most stressful situations in sterile manufacturing is definitely a media fill failure on a commercial line.

A media fill failure is a real nightmare.

The impact is immediate and massive. You have to inform regulatory agencies within a very short timeline, begin a detailed investigation immediately, and often place products or operations on hold while assessing the risk.

At the same time, you are investigating something that may not always have a clearly visible root cause. And in many situations, despite extensive investigations, you may still struggle to identify the exact reason.

A major media fill failure creates simultaneous technical, regulatory, operational, and business pressure. That is one of the most stressful situations anyone can experience in sterile operations.

The second major stress point is when an inspection goes badly, and a site receives a warning letter. That becomes a very long journey. Typically, remediating a site following serious regulatory action can take 4 to 5 years. Very few organisations can recover fully within two or three years.

During that remediation phase, the organisation remains under constant regulatory scrutiny. There is pressure from regulators, business teams, leadership, operations, and markets simultaneously.

You have to rebuild systems, restore credibility, strengthen processes, and maintain team morale while the site continues operating under intense observation. At the same time, new product approvals may slow or stop entirely, creating a major business impact.

Those long remediation journeys test not only technical capability, but also leadership endurance and organisational resilience. That is why these phases are among the most stressful in sterile manufacturing leadership.

Pharma Now: One audit you’ll never forget?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: Honestly, I remember failures and difficult moments more than successes. One inspection in particular still feels like a nightmare when I think about it.

It involved seven inspectors from five different regulatory agencies. The inspectors would arrive at 8:00 in the morning and continue until almost 10:30 at night every single day.

I was leading the discussions directly in front of them, and many of them were nationally reputed experts with very high stature in the regulatory world.

Those few days were probably among the most stressful periods of my entire career. The pressure, intensity, and level of scrutiny were extraordinary. I don’t think I’ll ever forget that inspection experience.

Pharma Now: Aseptic gowning, overrated or underrated? And why?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: I would say it is sometimes overrated.

Of course, aseptic gowning is extremely important. It must be scientifically designed, properly practised, and consistently monitored.

But over-gowning or excessively complicated gowning practices do not automatically improve contamination control.

I’ve seen situations where operators spend 30 minutes gowning very meticulously, following highly rigid procedures. Yet afterwards, inspections still identify multiple operator-related observations. Now imagine an operator doing this every single day under stressful production conditions.

Sometimes companies become excessively conservative and implement gowning practices that are too uncomfortable or impractical. They continue enforcing them without listening to employee feedback because they believe stricter automatically means safer.

But that can actually create new risks.

If gowning systems create excessive fatigue, discomfort, stress, or exhaustion, those conditions eventually influence operator behaviour and contamination risk.

I’ve personally seen cases where even consultants struggled to enter the manufacturing area because the gowning process itself was so exhausting. By the time they completed gowning and reached the inside area, they were already breathless and had to come back out.

In one such situation, I had to simplify the gowning process because it had become unnecessarily complicated.

That doesn’t mean gowning should be relaxed irresponsibly. It simply means gowning practices must be practical, sustainable, and scientifically justified.

More than what is required does not necessarily provide more contamination control. Sometimes it only increases operator fatigue and operational stress.

And once fatigue sets in, it can lead to poor behaviour, shortcuts, or mistakes, ultimately increasing contamination risk rather than reducing it.

Pharma Now: Sir, any closing remarks from your end?

Mr Hemanth Panasa: Thank you. I really enjoyed this conversation.

Looking back on my journey, I genuinely feel grateful. I started as a microbiologist, and today I’m a Vice President at a large organisation. Along the way, I had opportunities to work across different environments, meet incredible people, and experience both successes and failures.

Honestly, it has been a complete roller coaster ride, but one that I truly enjoyed. Every phase taught me something valuable.

Even now, as I have time left in my professional journey, I still want to continue giving my best. But more importantly, I want to leave behind something meaningful.

My biggest goal is simple: to leave every place better than how I received it.

And beyond systems or processes, I want to help create more people who carry the same mindset forward so that the learning and culture continue into future generations.

For the younger generation entering the industry today, one thing is very clear: you have access to information and technology on a scale we never had when we started our careers. Today, answers are available instantly through AI tools, digital platforms, and advanced technologies. That definitely makes life easier.

But every technological advancement also comes with greater responsibility and accountability. Technology can support decision-making, but responsibility still lies with people.

So my message to the next generation is simple:

Be thorough in whatever you do. Use technology wisely, but remain accountable for your actions. Do meaningful work, keep learning, and most importantly, enjoy the journey.

Things will definitely become better.

Pharma Now: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr Hemanth Panasa: Thank you.