Manik Sharma

Profession: Radiographer

Registration Number: RA65168

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 12:30 01/06/2015 End: 16:00 01/06/2015

Location: Health and Care Professions Council, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

During the course of your employment as a Band 6 Radiographer at Colchester Hospital University Trust between 10 May 2012 and 12 July 2012 you:

1. Failed to meet the required level of competence of a newly qualified Radiographer (Band 5), in particular that you failed to:

a) Carry out linear accelerator procedures in a safe, competent and knowledgeable manner

b) Demonstrate sound patient set-up skills

c) Demonstrate adequate positioning and technique ability2

d) Demonstrate the ability to practice autonomously and required supervision and prompting from other staff.

2. The matters set out in paragraph 1 constitute lack of competence.

3. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

 
Preliminary Matters:

1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the proceedings, in accordance with the Procedure Rules 2003 by notice dated 22 April 2015 sent to the Registrant’s HCPC registered address.

2. The Panel considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. He has sent an email to the HCPC dated 20 March 2015, indicating that he wishes to be removed from the HCPC Register and requesting the HCPC not to hold a further hearing in June 2015. The Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor to consider the relevant guidance, in the HCPC Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence and followed that advice. The Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, on the ground that there is no reason to believe that he would attend on a future date, if the hearing was adjourned because he has voluntarily chosen not to attend. Also this is a mandatory review of an existing order and a fair hearing can take place in his absence.


Background: 
3. On 11 June 2013, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee found that Mr Sharma’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his lack of competence and suspended his registration for 12 months. The Order of Suspension was reviewed on 3 June 2014 and a further suspension for 12 months was imposed.


4. Mr Sharma was employed as a Band 6 Therapeutic Radiographer by Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust between 10 May 2012 and 12 July 2012 when his contract was terminated. During this time his colleagues and senior managers expressed concerns about his apparent inability to carry out basic techniques and procedures expected of his role. As a result he had not been allowed to work unsupervised. He had been employed as a Band 6 Radiographer but had not been able to achieve the standard of a newly qualified Band 5 Radiographer. In fact, the Panel at the final hearing heard evidence that Mr Sharma was working well below the level of a Band 5 Radiographer and possibly as low as the level of a first year student.


5. On 03 June 2014 the panel was: “satisfied that Mr Sharma still has no insight into the concerns documented about his practice”. Mr Sharma was employed at the Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hospital, Jaipur, India as a Senior Radiation Therapy Technologist. He did not provide the panel with any evidence that he has undertaken courses of continuing professional development, he explained that this is optional in India and he confirmed that he had not completed any. The panel found: “Mr Sharma was working at the Colchester hospital under a high degree of supervision such as that which might be included in a Conditions of Practice Order and it was clear that he was unable to work safely within that setting.”


Decision:
6. This is a review under Article 30 of the 2001 Order. Article 29 (6) states that a striking-off order may not be made in respect of an allegation of the kind mentioned in article 22(1)(a)(ii) or (iv) unless the person concerned has been continuously suspended, or subject to a conditions of practice order, for a period of no less than two years immediately preceding the date of the decision of the Committee to make such an order.

7. The HCPC submits that the suspension should be continued or a striking off order should be imposed to take effect on 09 July 2015.


8. In reaching its decision today, this Panel cannot go behind the findings of the previous HCPC panels. The Panel today has accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice to exercise the principle of proportionality with regard to the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy.
9. The Registrant has had engagement with the HCPC since the original sanction was imposed to protect the public from his lack of competence. The panel was clear when the case was reviewed in 2014 that the competency concerns raised at the original hearing, had not been addressed.
10. The Panel considered the Indicative Sanctions Policy and followed the guidance to apply the principles of proportionality and consideration of sanctions in ascending order of gravity before concluding that a Striking-Off Order is the only appropriate sanction in this case. The Panel finds that the Registrant has no insight into his failings and there are no reasonable grounds to suppose that he will address the competence issues which are outstanding. Therefore it is not in the public interest or in the Registrant’s interests for the Panel to impose a further Suspension Order today. The only appropriate sanction is a Striking-Off Order, which will take effect on 09 July 2015 when the Registrant will have been continuously suspended for a period of no less than two years.

Order

Order : The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Manik Sharma from the Register on the date this order comes into effect, namely 09 July 2015.

Notes

Right of Appeal:
The Registrant may appeal to the appropriate court against the decision of the Panel and the order it has made. In this case the appropriate court is the High Court in England and Wales.


Under Articles 29 and 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, an appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on the Registrant. The order made against the Registrant will not take effect until that appeal period has expired or, if they appeal during that period, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Manik Sharma

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
01/06/2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Struck off