Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Melwinraj Manirajan for sexual misconduct towards colleague

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck nurse Melwinraj Manirajan off the register, finding he penetrated a junior colleague with his fingers without her consent in April 2022 and carried on after she said no. The panel said his insight remained limited four years later.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Melwinraj Manirajan, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 20C0350O).

Decision date: 13 August 2026 · Hearing started 3 August 2026 and ended 13 August 2026

In plain English

The NMC found that Melwinraj Manirajan, a registered nurse, put his finger or fingers inside a junior colleague's vagina without her consent on or around 14 April 2022, and did not stop when she said no and tried to remove his hand. The panel found the conduct was sexually motivated and amounted to serious sexual misconduct, and that his insight remained limited four years on. It found his fitness to practise impaired and made a striking-off order, with an interim suspension order of 18 months.

Charges

The NMC alleged that the registrant, a registered nurse, in relation to Colleague A (a junior colleague): (1) on or around 14 April 2022 on one or more occasion put his finger or fingers inside her vagina without her consent; (2) in relation to charge 1, on one or more occasion did not stop when she said 'no' and/or tried to remove his hand; and (3) that his actions at charges 1 and/or 2 were sexually motivated in that he was seeking sexual gratification. In light of the above, the NMC alleged his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct. He denied the charges. The referral came from Essex Police; the criminal case had been closed because it did not pass the evidential stage of the Full Code test.

Findings

The panel found charges 1, 2 and 3 proved on the balance of probabilities. It found Colleague A a credible witness whose account was clear, consistent on the pertinent facts and supported by near-contemporaneous text messages, and found the registrant's alternative account and his explanation of those messages incoherent and lacking in credibility. The panel noted the different standards of proof in criminal and regulatory proceedings and placed no reliance on the police case-closure report. It found the conduct amounted to serious sexual misconduct and a significant departure from the Code, citing standards 1.1, 1.3, 20.1, 20.3 and 20.5, and that limbs b) and c) of the Grant test were engaged. It found no evidence that patients were put at risk. Because he continued to deny the conduct and his reflections made no reference to Colleague A or the harm caused to her, the panel found his insight limited and concluded he exhibited deep-seated attitudinal issues, with a risk of repetition. Fitness to practise was found currently impaired on public protection and public interest grounds. The panel treated the case as a 'highest risk case' and directed the registrar to strike him off, imposing an interim suspension order of 18 months to cover the appeal period.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating feature: he provided a significant number of positive testimonials from people who were made aware of the allegations he was facing and that attested to his good character and competent practice.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: he demonstrated limited insight; the effect of his actions on Colleague A (recorded in private session); and that his misconduct raised attitudinal concerns.

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.