Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — registration appeal
GDC committee dismisses dental nurse Sushma Aryal's appeal against CPD removal
The General Dental Council's Registration Appeals Committee has dismissed dental nurse Sushma Aryal's appeal against her removal from the register for failing to meet continuing professional development requirements. It found no exceptional circumstances to justify keeping her registered.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 23 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026
Appeal dismissed (appeal against removal dismissed)
Added to MedicWatch: 8 July 2026Report a correction
What does “appeal against removal dismissed” mean?
The practitioner appealed against an administrative decision (typically removal from the register for non-compliance) and the regulator's appeal committee dismissed the appeal — the original decision stands.
Concerning Sushma Aryal, dental nurse (General Dental Council 208311).
Decision date: 23 June 2026 · Hearing started 22 June 2026
In plain English
The GDC's Registration Appeals Committee decided that Sushma Aryal, a dental nurse, had her appeal dismissed. She had appealed the Registrar's decision to remove her from the register for not meeting continuing professional development (CPD) requirements, having completed only 3 of the required 10 hours over two years. The Committee found no exceptional circumstances to justify keeping her registered, so the removal stands. She may apply for restoration.
Charges
This was an appeal against the GDC Registrar's decision to erase Miss Aryal's name from the Dental Care Professionals register for non-compliance with the statutory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements. The Registrar found that for the two-year period 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2025 she had completed only 3 of the required minimum 10 hours of verifiable CPD, leaving a shortfall of 7 hours, and had not provided a compliant activity log.
Findings
The Registration Appeals Committee noted that Miss Aryal did not dispute failing to meet her CPD requirements, accepting a shortfall of 7 verifiable hours and that she had not submitted a compliant activity log, though she had since undertaken further CPD. The Committee held that the CPD Rules cannot be waived and that CPD completed outside the two-year period could not make up the shortfall. Applying the Registrar's guidance on discretion, it was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence of exceptional personal circumstances to justify not erasing her name. The appeal was dismissed.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings Service 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.