Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Radiographer suspended for 12 months after regulatory misconduct findings

Manoj Nair had been acquitted in the criminal case. The regulatory panel applied the civil standard and found misconduct and continuing impairment.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 10 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning Manoj Nair, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA68363).

Decision date: 10 July 2026 · Hearing started 6 July 2026 and ended 10 July 2026

In plain English

Radiographer Manoj Nair was suspended for 12 months after a regulatory panel found sexually motivated misconduct towards a colleague and delayed reporting of a criminal charge. He had been acquitted in the criminal case; the panel applied the different civil standard of proof. It found continuing impairment, but considered suspension proportionate after weighing the isolated incident and seven years without further reported concerns.

Charges

Sexually motivated inappropriate comments and touching of a colleague in April 2019, and failure to promptly notify the HCPC of a criminal charge. He was acquitted in the criminal proceedings in March 2021.

Findings

Applying the civil standard of proof, the regulatory panel found all particulars proved despite the earlier criminal acquittal. It found misconduct and current impairment on personal and public components, with incomplete insight and remediation. In choosing sanction it also weighed the isolated incident and seven years without further reported concerns. It imposed 12 months' suspension, with a separate interim suspension for the appeal period subject to a maximum of 18 months.

Mitigating factors

a. The Panel agreed that, based on the information before it, this was an isolated incident in 2019. b. Further significant time had elapsed between the index event of April 2019, to the criminal court outcome of acquittal in 2021 and finally the current hearing in July 2026. c. The Registrant had accepted that a breach of professional boundaries occurred. d. The Registrant had notified the Panel that he would not be attending the hearing but invited the Panel to consider “my case in its entirety, including my character, my intentions, and the findings of the criminal court”. The Panel noted that it was the Registrant’s responsibility to engage with the proceedings and ensure all relevant information was before it for determination. Had the Registrant attended the hearing he could have assisted the Panel with additional information that would have provided a better understanding of his defence and the context of his current circumstances. The Panel noted that this information was not present in the materials before it and had made appropriate enquiries to ascertain its availability. The Panel had established through such enquiries that the Registrant had not in fact supplied such materials to the regulatory proceedings. In any event the Panel concluded that sufficient evidence to make findings of fact was available when the matter proceeded in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel would not speculate about the nature or quality of other information referred to by the Registrant which he had not ensured was part of his representations.

Aggravating factors

a. The level of insight appears limited. It remains a concern to the Panel and is an indicator for future risk of repetition. However, the Panel balances this risk with the fact that there has been no reported repetition in a period of seven years. b. The Registrant has not undertaken any meaningful remediation which also is an indicator to future risk of repetition. c. The Registrant maintains a denial of key aspects of the incident whilst accepting he crossed professional boundaries, presenting with contradicting accounts for the incident. d. There was an imbalance of power between the Registrant, as a senior professional, and Person A, an 18-year-old, unregistered junior staff member. There was a vulnerability to Person A by virtue of their age and employed status which amounted to an abuse of the Registrant’s position of trust with Person A. e. This event involved serious sexual misconduct including sexual gratification which caused harm to Person A, as evidenced in her statement, as well as the impact it had on staff at the hospital, resourcing at the Trust and care for patients.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions 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.