Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC orders Anish Babu Thananki struck off over dishonesty and sexual harassment

The NMC ordered striking off after findings about employment history and unwanted sexual comments. It did not prove intent to violate the colleague's dignity, and no evidence was offered on a separate allegation.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 11 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning Anish Babu Thananki, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 23C1835O).

Decision date: 11 September 2026 · Hearing started 1 September 2026 and ended 11 September 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee ordered Anish Babu Thananki to be struck off for dishonesty about employment history and sexual harassment of a colleague. An intention to violate the colleague's dignity was not proved, and no evidence was offered on a separate allegation. The panel acknowledged his participation and expressed remorse but found insufficient insight or remediation. An interim suspension covers the appeal period before the final order takes effect.

Charges

The panel proved dishonest omission of employment history to secure an ICU nursing role and unwanted comments of a sexual nature to a colleague that breached professional boundaries and had an intimidating, humiliating or offensive effect. It did not prove an intention to violate the colleague's dignity or create such an environment. The NMC offered no evidence on a separate allegation of slapping another colleague, and the panel allowed that application.

Findings

The NMC panel found serious misconduct and impairment on public protection and public interest grounds. It found insufficient insight into dishonesty and sexual harassment and their effects on patients and the colleague. It acknowledged attendance, evidence, a reflective statement, expressed remorse and difficult personal circumstances, but considered conditions or suspension insufficient. It imposed a striking-off order and an 18-month interim suspension for the appeal period. If no appeal is made, the substantive order replaces the interim order 28 days after written notification. Private personal and health matters are not disclosed here.

Mitigating factors

• You attended the hearing; you gave evidence and opened yourself up to cross examination • You provided a reflective piece • You expressed remorse for the distress your actions caused and had regret for your conduct • You were facing difficult personal circumstances

Aggravating factors

• Your dishonesty was premeditated, sustained, deliberate and for personal gain. • The significant risk to patient safety presented by your dishonesty given that you secured a role caring for patients in intensive care by substantially misrepresenting your experience. • A complete lack of insight into your dishonesty and especially in relation to the impact of your dishonesty on patient safety. • During the hearing, you sought to wrongfully implicate and blame others. In relation to the dishonesty charges, you blamed the agent at Global Nurse Force. In relation to the breach of professional boundaries and sexual harassment, you acknowledged that a conversation took place between yourself and Colleague B but said that Colleague B had made the inappropriate comments and fabricated her account of the incident. • The sexual misconduct creates an unsafe workplace environment. • A lack of insight in relation to the sexual nature of your misconduct and its impact on Colleague B. • Emotional harm was caused to Colleague B. • A risk of harm was created for a very vulnerable patient who was present throughout the incident as Colleague B was unable to perform her clinical duties and the patient’s treatment was delayed due to you asking personal questions causing Colleague B distress.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.