Surinder Singh-Digpal

Preliminary matters

Application for parts of the hearing to be in private

1. Mr D’Alton indicated that, as was apparent from the papers before the Panel, reference would be made during the hearing to some personal matters relating to Mr Singh-Digpal during this application and he asked that those matters be dealt with in private. Ms Mustard supported the application.
2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and agreed that it was appropriate for all matters relating to Mr Singh-Digpal’s health and personal life be dealt with in private. All other matters would be heard in public in the normal way.

Background

3. The matter that has been considered by the Panel is an application made under Article 33 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 for restoration to the HCPC Register of Mr Singh-Digpal, who was struck off the Register as a result of an order made by another panel of this Committee on 9 February 2015.
4. Mr Singh-Digpal had been a Registered Radiographer since 5 July 2002. The matters set out in the allegation he faced in 2015 arose from a number of incidents involving four members of staff and two patients during the period from around March 2012 to around 6 August 2013, when the registrant was employed as a Radiographer at Portsmouth Hospital Trust (“Portsmouth”) and subsequently as a locum Radiographer at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (“Southampton”).
5. At the Final Hearing in 2015, that panel heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses including: PM, Deputy Head of Midwifery at Portsmouth, Staff Member B, an Administration Manager at Portsmouth, Patient A, JH, Superintendent Radiographer at Portsmouth, Staff Member E, Patient F and JP, Lead Superintendent Radiographer at Southampton. That panel also had regard to the Witness Statement of LB, Radiographer and Advanced Practitioner at Southampton.
6. The Final Hearing panel accepted the evidence of all of these witnesses as credible and consistent, and whilst LB was not called as a witness in that hearing, that panel noted from the registrant that he did not take issue with the contents of her witness statement. That panel has also had regard to all the documentary evidence contained in the HCPC’s bundle as well as in Mr Singh-Digpal’s bundle.
7. The Final Hearing panel had also had the benefit of hearing in detail from Mr Singh-Digpal and was not satisfied that he had given an entirely honest account of the matters alleged against him and found that he was inconsistent and evasive in some aspects of his evidence.
8. The matters found proved at the hearing were as follows:

During the course of your employment as a Radiographer for Portsmouth Hospital Trust and as a locum Radiographer for University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, you:

1. Crossed and/or breached professional boundaries in that:
a. In respect of staff member B, you:
i. on 12 September 2012 told her that she was attractive;
ii. told her repeatedly that she was beautiful;
iii. asked if you could email her for non-work related reasons.
b. In respect of staff member C, on 11 September 2012, you asked if you could email her without clinical/professional need;
c. In respect of staff member D, you:
i. between March 2012 - October 2012, emailed staff member D on 17 occasions without professional/clinical need, using your work email account; and
ii. invited her to evenings out with you.
2. On 1 November 2012, in respect of Patient A, you:
a. adjusted her gown without providing any explanation for doing so;
b. touched her in the pelvic area without providing any explanation for doing so;
c. invited her to have coffee with you;
d. asked her not to let anyone know you had carried out her X-ray because you had done this as a favour.
3. On 16 July 2013, in respect of staff member E;
a. you invited the staff member into the changing rooms/locker rooms and showed her some massage oil you had in your bag and;
b. said to the staff member that if she "came back after 6pm that evening nobody would be there and you would show her how to use the massage oil properly" or words to that effect.
4. On 24 July 2013, In respect of patient F:
a. you persistently invited the patient for coffee despite her refusal;
b. you asked her to go for a drink or words to that effect;
c. not proved;
d. you suggested that if she wanted her test results early she could collect them after 5pm on the 25 or 26 July 2013 and then you could go for a coffee.
5. The matters described in paragraph 3 (a) and (b) were sexually motivated.

9. The panel at the final hearing concluded that Mr Singh-Digpal’s conduct amounted to misconduct and that by reason of that misconduct his fitness to practise was impaired and that the appropriate sanction was one of strike-off. That panel explained its reasoning as follows:

“Having found that the registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Panel has now considered what order, if any, to impose on his registration. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel is of the view that, whilst individually some of the allegations are of a low level, taken together, they present a clear picture of persistent and serious misconduct. It has been a feature of this case that the registrant does not seem to have shown appropriate insight into the seriousness of his behaviour and the impact which it has on others. The registrant has not been able to satisfy the Panel that he has taken any real steps to improve his conduct and he has told the Panel that such insight as he has comes from talking to his wife and also from his own “review” of his own behaviour. He told the Panel in his submission at this stage that he has “been dealing with [his] behaviour in a number of ways”. However, when asked by the Panel to expand on this, he was unable to point to any particular way in which he had done so.

It has also been a feature of this case that the registrant appears to have very little understanding as to what it is about his conduct that has caused members of staff and patients to complain about him. He has suggested that a number of the complainants were encouraged by others to do so. Although the Panel acknowledges that the registrant has taken the opportunity at this hearing to express his remorse and apologise to those patients and colleagues who have been affected by his behaviour, the Panel was unable to determine from the evidence and submissions of the registrant whether his remorse could be seen to amount to any degree of insight into his failings and why his behaviour was wrong. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that there is a strong likelihood of repetition.

The registrant has explained to the Panel that his behaviour was attributable to the stress he was under following three bereavements of close family members in a short period of time and also because of marital difficulties. The Panel records that, despite close questioning on both matters, the registrant has not provided a consistent and accurate history of them. The registrant told the Panel that his marital difficulties occurred in the period following the death of his mother-in-law when his wife was spending more time with her family in London. The registrant initially told the Panel that the death occurred in August 2011. He subsequently referred to this having occurred in August 2012 which was within the period covered by the present allegations. When asked to clarify the exact year, the registrant, having reflected on the matter overnight, confirmed that it was August 2012. However, within his bundle of testimonial evidence, there are two statements from Dorcas Roop and Patricia Aravenas who describe themselves as family friends. Both of them are clear that this bereavement occurred shortly after the death of the registrant’s brother which the registrant has said was in February 2011. Ms. Roop said that it happened six months later. Ms. Aravenas said it happened “shortly after” the death of his brother. Nadine Seward of Pertemps said that the registrant had told her that the three bereavements had all occurred within the space of a year which accords with what the registrant initially told the Panel. The registrant was also asked about the dates when he was experiencing marital difficulties and when he and his wife had separated in order to understand the significance of that issue in the context of the period covered by the allegations. However, the Panel was unable to get a clear answer from him. In addition, on questioning, the registrant clarified that his wife was actually working in London during the week and was commuting there on a weekly basis, returning home at weekends. As noted, the Panel considers that the registrant has been evasive and inconsistent in his answers at this hearing. While none of these matters has a direct bearing on the allegations, they are relevant to the degree of weight which the Panel can put on the registrant’s evidence about the effect which these unfortunate events had on his health at the material time. The Panel is reinforced in its view by the evidence of a number of the witnesses. For example, in paragraph 11 of her witness statement, JP stated:-

“During the meeting with [the registrant] on 6 August 2013, I was surprised at his reaction when I told him of Patient A’s concern. I did expect him to say that he did not make the comments. However, he was evasive and did not directly answer if he had made the comments to Patient F. Instead he spoke about the way he was with patients in general terms. He did not deny the allegation. From the way he reacted, I understood that he did not understand that his behaviour was inappropriate…”

This has a resonance with the evidence of a number of witnesses who had interviewed the registrant and accords with the Panel’s own view that there has been no direct and clear evidence from the registrant at this hearing that he understands how and why his behaviour was inappropriate.

The Panel has taken account of all the evidence in mitigation contained in the registrant’s bundle. The Panel has carefully noted what has been said in the testimonials provided by the registrant but has been concerned that only two of around twenty seven writers have mentioned the allegations in their letters. Those two letters appear to be in email form albeit that the email addresses have been removed, they are unsigned, and have no other address. Only one of them is dated. All the other testimonials are workplace references which make no mention of the allegations and the Panel has been concerned about the extent to which the writers knew about the allegations, if at all. During questioning by the Panel, the registrant admitted that many of the writers of the testimonials were not aware of the matters under investigation by the HCPC. The Panel was also concerned from the registrant’s oral evidence that he had encouraged a number of the writers to use a ‘testimonial template’ on Google. During this hearing the registrant has told the Panel that he has undertaken locum work through an agency and that there have been no further incidents of a similar nature. He told the Panel that he has not informed any of the organisations which employed him since leaving Portsmouth and Southampton about the allegations or the investigations into his employment but had left that entirely to the locum agency. The Panel was therefore very surprised that in a lengthy testimonial from Pertemps dated 26th January 2015, there was no mention whatsoever of the allegations or of any previous incidents. Indeed, in that letter, Ms. Seward states:-

“[the registrant] came to me for work after he decided to return to Radiography after the terrible shock of losing his brother, mother-in-law and nephew in the space of a year, which affected him greatly but having found the strength returned to the profession he loves. Although these deaths affected [the registrant] greatly, he knew the only way to get some normality back into his life was to return to the world of Radiography”.

The Panel has been concerned about the absence of any reference to the fact that the registrant had been working at Portsmouth and Southampton and had been dismissed from the former and had his locum contract terminated at the latter in the interim period. This point was put to the registrant who explained that Pertemps had known about his employment history after the bereavements but he could offer no explanation as to why Ms. Seward nevertheless did not mention it.

No medical evidence to support the registrant’s asserted health issues has been supplied nor any evidence of counselling. There has been no oral evidence from any witnesses to support the registrant.

The testimonial evidence confirms the evidence of the witnesses at this hearing that the registrant is well-regarded for his professional knowledge and ability as a Radiographer and the Panel has taken that into account. The testimonials may also serve to indicate that there may have been no repetition of similar behaviour but, in the absence of any indication that the writers were aware of the present allegations, the Panel cannot be certain. However, the Panel has found that it can give very little weight to this evidence since most of the letters are general workplace references which do not address the issues being considered by the Panel.

The Panel also considered matters in aggravation. As noted, the misconduct was serious and continued for an extended period. The Panel was concerned that it was an aggravating feature of the case that his misconduct was of the same general character as earlier behaviour. Despite having been formally given a final written warning in 2008 for kissing a colleague he had not met before that day in a lift without consent, and having been spoken to about inappropriate behaviour towards a patient in 2011, the registrant appears not to have learned from those incidents. Furthermore, having been dismissed from Portsmouth on 11 December 2012, and while that matter was under investigation by the HCPC, the registrant repeated his behaviour in two further incidents at Southampton in July 2013, one involving a patient and one instance of inappropriate behaviour towards a junior colleague which the Panel has found to have been sexually motivated, as a result of which his locum contract was terminated. His conduct had caused considerable worry and alarm to patients and colleagues.

Certain of the misconduct has been found by the Panel to be sexually motivated. Such behaviour by a registered health professional is unacceptable, particularly when it occurred in a hospital environment when the registrant was on duty and was directed towards a junior member of staff.

The primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which a health professional may pose to those who use or need his or her services. The Panel was conscious that in reaching its decision, appropriate weight must be given to wider public interest considerations, including the deterrent effect to other health professionals, the reputation of the Radiography profession, as well as maintaining public confidence in the regulatory process.”

10. Having concluded that taking no action, a caution or conditions of practice were not appropriate in this case, the Final Hearing panel stated:

“The Panel considered that Mr. Singh-Digpal has shown virtually no insight into why his conduct is unacceptable for a registered health professional. He has had numerous opportunities to reflect on his behaviour since 2008 and it is instructive that despite all the disciplinary interviews and actions taken by employers since then, he does not appear to have learned anything from the experience. This Panel has given him numerous opportunities to explain his insight and reassure it that he is no longer at risk of repeating the behaviour, but he has responded with bland assurances about his future conduct rather than a credible description of his insight into why his behaviour was unacceptable. In addition, the registrant has presented no evidence of measures undertaken in respect of remediation.

For these reasons, the Panel does not consider that the registrant will be able to resolve his problems during a period of suspension and has concluded that the misconduct which it has found is fundamentally incompatible with Mr. Singh-Digpal continuing to be a registered Radiographer.

The Indicative Sanctions Guidance states that a striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious acts involving abuse of trust such as sexual abuse… and persistent failure and where there is a lack of insight, continuing problems or denial. The Guidance states that an inability or unwillingness to resolve matters suggests that a lower sanction will not be appropriate. The Panel has paid careful regard to what was said by the registrant about changes in his conduct. The Panel is not satisfied that Mr. Singh-Digpal has recognised any of the criticisms of his conduct identified in this hearing and the Panel has grave concerns as to whether he is capable of remedying them. The Panel is reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that it is now more than six years since the first disciplinary action was taken against him and despite further complaints emerging, he has failed to take any of the opportunities afforded to him to address or put an end to his inappropriate behaviour. For all these reasons, the Panel considers that a striking off order is the only appropriate and proportionate order to make in this case.”

11. On 25 February 2021, Mr Singh-Digpal sent an email to the HCPC stating it had been six years since he was removed from the Register and he wished to start the process of being restored. He said he was in the process of completing his return to practice procedure (30 days) at Wycombe Hospital, as well as 30 days of private and formal study. He added, “My paperwork for the return to practice is now complete.”
12. Mr Singh-Digpal subsequently submitted a detailed document entitled ‘A Statement for Restoration to Practice for Surinder Singh-Digpal (Radiography Division)’. For clarity that Statement is reproduced in these reasons in full, as follows:

A Statement for Restoration to Practice for Surinder Singh-Digpal (Radiography Division)

To the respected members of the HCPC restoration panel.
My name is Surinder Singh-Digpal and I was removed from the HCPC register in February 2015 as a result of a HCPC hearing. The allegations related to sexual & professional misconduct and abuse of trust email policy.
A striking off order was imposed following a week long hearing where evidence was heard by a panel.
More specifically the complaints related to the following:
· Alleged exposure of patient during a KUB exam
· Alleged invitation of coffee to the same patient
· Alleged suggestion of favour done for same patient
· Alleged offer of massage to staff member
· Alleged Non-professional behaviour towards a staff member
· Alleged abuse of trust email policy
It has now been over 6 years since the striking off order was imposed, and as part of these sanctions I am now eligible to reapply for restoration to the HCPC register.
I am writing this statement to the respected members of the HCPC panel in accordance with the HCPC restoration process and readmission guidelines.
The primary aim of this statement of restoration is to demonstrate to the respected panel that I have actively taken the necessary measures to eradicate the behaviour relating to the above complaints, and therefore be restored to the HCPC register of practice for radiographers.

The following statement is written as an accurate and honest account of my journey over the past 6 years.
The past 6 years of my life have been the hardest time I have had to deal with personally from all aspects involving my family, my work, friends & general day to day life. Being removed from the register meant that my career up to that point (10 years) came to grinding halt.
From the start of my career as a radiographer, I have always worked hard, cared for my patients as well as continued to learn and share knowledge at every opportunity. I have always regarded myself as an upstanding member of my profession and peers as well as my community.
Up to the point of my dismissal from Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust in Dec 2012, I progressively rose through the ranks to a Senior 1 radiographer, completing a master’s degree in Science & Research thesis which brought about a change in local protocols. My continued interest in learning and sharing knowledge also meant I had built close links with Portsmouth University, where I was a guest lecturer, as well as the clinical liaison (link radiographer) at the hospital.
Prior to my dismissal & pending the HCPC hearing, I then continued to work as a locum radiographer until February 2015 with full approval from the HCPC.
The consequences of my actions resulted directly from my total disregard of HCPC & trust policies, codes of conduct & the professional integrity of my profession (Radiography). These actions which lead to the sanction being imposed have always been something that I have deeply regretted and with hindsight should never have been carried out given the effect left on the patient and staff members involved. I whole heartedly understand now the way the persons involved would have felt given the nature and seriousness of the complaints, and completely accept their reasons for bringing my actions to light.
I have fully accepted the sanctions that were imposed over 6 years ago, and have always made it clear that these actions were completely regrettable and wholly remorseful before and throughout the hearing. It is my belief that these actions could have been totally avoided, had I respected the code of conduct and given a thought to my behaviour at these times.
The distress that was experienced by the patient and staff members involved was also evident at the hearing, however this was never intended, and was reinforced at the hearing by offering my personal apologies both in writing and in person. Once again I have always shown full remorse and full regret to all persons affected by my actions and request the respected members of the HCPC panel to know this (please consult original transcript at time of hearing if necessary).
Whilst I have fully accepted my total responsibility towards my actions and the consequent striking off sanction that was passed over 6 years ago, I have remained positive and totally focussed on correcting these ill-judged actions so that I may be restored to the register once again. I have done this in a variety of ways which has helped me correct my behaviour and realise the magnitude of my actions through REFLECTION, EDUCATION, INSIGHT & REFORM.
The mistakes that I have made over the short space of time in question have made me realise that this behaviour was on the opposite end of own high standards. Allowing myself time to review my actions and behaviour has been something that I have done every day since the complaints were made. It is easy for me to tell the respected members of the HCPC panel that mistakes were made and it will not be repeated. However, I wish to explain to the respected members of the HCPC panel what I mean by this.
My actions were of course mistakes of monumental proportions, and ones that I fully understand caused great harm to the persons concerned. These mistakes were a direct result of my own actions and through insight and reflection I completely understand their severity and the consequences which followed.

With this said I would like to make the respected members of the HCPC panel aware that I have gone to great lengths through the benefit of insight and understanding to correct and eradicate the behaviour in question which lead to my ill-judged actions. I want to personally assure the respected members of the panel that I have learnt from my mistakes and used this experience to totally eradicate this behaviour going forward.
I have invested a great deal of time in resetting my behaviour, conduct and professional manner so that the behaviour in question will not be repeated again. The last 6 years has taught me a great deal in the importance of professional integrity and how healthcare professionals are expected to behave not just in a work or clinical environment, but as whole throughout their lives. I have also learnt that a shift in behaviour in the right direction will lead to repetition in behaviour. When this behaviour is repeated over and over, it then becomes the gold standard. I have reached a point now where this reset in behaviour has been acknowledged and accepted going forward.
It is my sole aim to put this across to the respected members of the HCPC panel so that I may be considered for restoration to the register. Through this hard work, education, change, time investment and insight, it is my firm belief that I am in a much stronger place now going forward to once again be restored to the register.
The last 6 years have set me on a path of correction and redemption to which I intend to fulfil and uphold, however this journey has not been taken alone.
Through the complete help and support of the following factors and persons that have been an integral part I have come a long way, and feel now worthy for restoration.

Family life & Friends
Since the sanction of striking off was imposed in February 2015, it is fair to say that my life has changed in most aspects. The sanction of course was a heavy blow to me personally, but one that has been fully accepted over this time period. My case did appear in national and local media, which of course made matters difficult to digest and manage. Despite this very difficult situation at the time and throughout this period my family & friends have fully supported me in every way possible. This of course does not detract away from the nature and severity of the allegations, but the support I have received since this process has been completely welcome.
I am now 44 years old, married and have 3 grown up children. My wife is in the healthcare profession & has been for nearly 15 years now. My son is 23 and a Police Officer of nearly 2 years. I have a daughter of 20 who is currently studying Finance at University locally, & my youngest is now 15 studying for her GCSE’s in 2022.
My parents are both in their 60’s, my mum has never worked whilst my dad is a full time Chartered Accountant. I also have 3 siblings now of which I am the eldest. Unfortunately, my youngest brother passed away 10 years ago from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
Whilst the last 6 years have been difficult, my family have shown me full support in aiding the recovery process. Watching my son firstly, & now my daughter go through university has been a proud moment. It has further made me appreciate & reinforce the ethos of working hard and holding onto those things you regard as dear.
My current situation has allowed me to reflect vastly on professionalism, ethics and behaviour, a person in public service must uphold these values at all times. I have also been over many times that in the short space of time relating to the allegations, these values were disregarded momentarily which ultimately had cost me dearly. I had allowed myself to be put in a position where my disregard for standards was not only ignored, but repeated in a short space of time.
I want to emphasise to the respected HCPC panel that I completely accept my actions and have always appreciated the magnitude & severity of my mistakes, therefore accepting complete responsibility and accountability of those actions.
Through this responsibility of acceptance, my family has helped me immensely to get through the last 6 years. They of course understand the magnitude and severity of the allegations that were brought forward, however through investment of time, communication and love & support, we have dealt with this together.
There have of course been moments where addressing these issues were uncomfortable for me as an individual at the start, but realising that the issue was not going to just disappear made it easier over time to address and focus on. There have been times where personal relationships have been strained, however by committing to the rebuilding process this trust has now been restored.
With my son being in law enforcement, this has reinforced my education on HCPC ethics on standards and codes of conduct. To remain professional and dignified at all times with both patients and staff, with NO EXCEPTIONS. With relation to the allegations that were made, and codes of conduct I want the respected members of the HCPC panel to be aware that by my own admission there was a clear lapse and total disregard of these codes. My reasons for acting the way I did will always be of deep regret and remorse, I had no right to behave in the manner presented to the patient and staff members involved.

However, what is absolutely clear is that I have gone to great lengths to address these problems head on and can assure the respected panel that these actions will never be repeated.
Through reading material based on behaviour, various literature from different sources, watching YouTube material, talking and reflection it has helped me to focus and eradicate that behaviour which related to the allegations made. (Please refer to the list of reading material on spreadsheet under private study).
Reflection has been of major importance in this process, in that it has allowed me to look back and focus on how I behaved. Once again, I would not know exactly how I must have made the patient and staff members feel at the time, but I can only imagine it was not comfortable. I have looked back many times with total disgust of my behaviour and felt each time that I not only let myself down, but also my profession, which I have an incredible passion and admiration for.
The process of reform has helped me immensely in the last 6 years. My mistakes have led directly to the situation I find myself in, but taking action to correct these mistakes has been something that has required dedication, commitment & of course hard work. Realising these mistakes was not difficult, I acted in a manner that was not appropriate for mine or any other profession. Since this time I have moved forward and made advancements in not only changing, but eradicating my former behaviour. Through my direct experiences, interactions and behaviour changes I have directly moved forward in making the required changes to once again be considered to work within healthcare. I can emphasise this directly to the respected members of the HCPC panel by mentioning that in all forms of employment I have undertaken in the last 6 years, there has been NO SUCH REPEAT BEHAVIOUR.
My counselling sessions following the sanctions helped me massively too. Talking to a professional about my actions and behaviour gave me a clearer understanding about why the complaints were made. Furthermore, it made me appreciate it from a patient and staff perspective, which previously was a perspective from my own point of view. The counselling sessions were arranged through my GP, and I found these extremely helpful by talking of my own experiences and feelings at the time (Please see attachment BACP Website Enquiry).

I want to stress and emphasise to the respected members of the HCPC panel at this point, that through this process of reflection and education on behaviour and conduct, that I WILL NEVER AGAIN PUT MYSELF INTO THIS OR A SIMILAR POSITION GOING FORWARD. I completely accept my actions as irresponsible & ill-judged at the time of the complaints & assure the panel that these actions will never be repeated again.
As well as my family, I have also had a wider support network through a small circle of friends both in healthcare & socially. Due to the nature of the complaints it was difficult with some to remain as friends (their choice).
However, largely I have received great support from friends overall. At the time of the original hearing, there were also a number character references that were supplied from professionals and personal friends. (Please feel free to return to these).
In light of this, I have also included much recent character references from my manager, a personal friends and the Superintendent Radiographer at High Wycombe Hospital, that I kindly request the respected members of the HCPC panel to draw their attention to.
These references were provided from 2 personal friends that I have known for a number of years, and it is hope that it will provide the respected members of the HCPC panel into an insight of me as an individual. I have also sought 2 professional references to demonstrate my character now from my current manger, and the Radiography Lead where the return to practice was completed. (Please see attached for the mentioned references).
Through conversations about behaviour and conduct in a clinical environment it has made me further appreciate how I let my own usual high standards slip in a short space of time. Through these conversations, and of course my own education & reflection, there was clearly an absence of these usually high standards by the person named.
Having read the HCPC code of conduct for healthcare professionals many times over, I have taken specifics steps to safe guard myself against similar situations, so that they will never be repeated in the future. These steps largely have concentrated on the following specifically relating to the complaints made:
· To remain professional with staff and patients AT ALL TIMES
· In situations of vulnerability or sensitivity to have 1 or more healthcare worker present AT ALL TIMES
· Where issues involving patient clothing are concerned, to ALWAYS seek assistance from a female colleague where females are concerned
· To engage in matters that relate primarily to the examination with patients or relatives
· NEVER engage in personal conversation with staff where it is deemed
not appropriate
· NEVER hint or suggest that a favour is being done for the patient
· ALWAYS make sure that when using the trust IT server, the content relate to matters related ONLY TO WORK MATTER’s
*** Note to respected members of the HCPC panel, please refer to the above steps as my Practical Reform Steps ***

As the allegations and complaints related specifically to the above, I have therefore concentrated a large part of my reform towards these areas.
Through everyday interaction, either in the work environment or socially I have had a greater appreciation of my own behaviour, and with reflection at the time the complaints were made I have taken these steps, referred to above and based my entire reform process on these foundations.
My friends that work within Radiography have also reinforced the above criteria from which I have based my education, learning & reform on. This has been done by reviewing my actions at that time, compared to the position I am in now. I would like the respected members of the HCPC panel to be aware that in the last 6 years, I have had no repeat behaviour of my original complaints whatsoever. My reform has been constant and on-going, and there is rarely a day that passes where I reflect on this reform and appreciate how far I have come.
My ultimate aim would be to have my registration restored, so that I can concentrate on my family and radiography career once again. My family have been my pillar of support and my friends have kept me motivated to return to the clinical environment throughout this period.
I have constantly reviewed my actions on a daily basis and once again take full responsibility of these actions. My assurance to the respected members of the HCPC panel in the strongest sense of the term is that I have fully corrected my behaviour and reset my entire code of professional conduct as per those stated within the HCPC code of ethics.

I have referred to this link several times throughout this period.

Work since sanctions began in February 2015
Since being removed from the HCPC register in February 2015, my emphasise remained on supporting my family both financially and physically. To continue to pay my mortgage and bills was of course my main concern. Having worked in the healthcare service for the past 14 years previously, I had never contemplated working in another industry.
Following the striking off order I immediately began seeking employment to maintain financial commitments. Although my wife worked at the time and still continues to do so within the dental industry, she is self-employed so selects her own hours. I therefore registered with employment agencies and I was able to be given immediate work. The 1st job was on an ongoing basis and delivering parcels for a delivery company. The 2nd interim job involved working in a plastics factory as a finisher & delivery driver. The situation that I had landed in was of course self-manufactured, but very quickly made me realise what I had lost & how this was going to impact my family.
A note to the respected HCPC panel if I may, both of these jobs involved interaction with people on a personal level as well as going to personal homes to deliver goods and packages. Although only for a short term, I carried out both of these jobs to best of my ability and without any incidents or cause for complaint.
Following this short period of 6-8 months or so, I was then offered a more permanent role through another agency selling bedroom furniture for a nationwide company. The job involved visiting showrooms all over the south coast of England which involved showing customers the benefits and value of specific products. This was better paid and was also based on commission for completed sales. The role involved talking to customers, sometimes as couples as well as lone shoppers, taking their details and booking appointments for a design visit.
This job was held down for 9 months or so and I was quickly progressed to area manager covering a number of showrooms. I enjoyed the interaction with customers, and remained professional at all times. On most days the job involved working with 1 other colleague on overlap shifts. I then decided to move on following an approach from another job.
This job involved a larger salary, a company car and occasional nights away where necessary. The job role was for a major tobacco company obtaining new business with their products. Face to face appointments and interaction was a big part of the job as it was in the field. My patch was quite a distance from home, however fuel cards, company mobile phone and hotel accounts were available. The job also involved national meetings every 3 months all over the country which meant weekends away with the other sales teams.
I wish to make the respected members of the HCPC panel aware that this job involved close interaction with both clients and colleagues. There were occasions where team working was required and spending the entire day with colleagues and mangers. There were instances in this job where as mentioned previously, nights away were required. Working closely with colleagues preparing for meetings and presenting products were all an essential part of the role.
My behaviour and manner towards clients and colleagues was always professional throughout this time, which once again indicates my intention to the panel that it has been my sole and primary goal to eradicate my past behaviour and mistakes.
Although the role was better in terms of salary and security, I took the decision to move on as it was extremely tiring physically with long hours on the road, as well as large amounts of time away from home and my family.
My 3rd and present job to date is for a telecoms company based closer to home and office based in a call centre environment. In the beginning, the role involved cold calling consumer customers to review their telecoms and sale new tariffs or handsets. Over the last 2 years or more the role has focussed on businesses. The role involves extensive conversations on the phone with small & large business owners to offer them telecom solutions with better service and value.
My present employer has fully supported my return to healthcare over the last year, and have given me full paid leave allowance to complete the return to practice procedure (now fully complete).

At my current employer I am actively involved in the well-being of staff (working from home since March 2020). My duties include 1 of a team of 1st Aiders as well as being a fire warden in the event of an emergency. My skills have been called on 2 or more occasions where staff members either collapsed, chocked, fitted or fainted. Both medical and fire safety courses are attended annually to remain updated, though no courses have been attended in the last year through work due to the current lockdown.
I want to emphasise once again to the respected members of the HCPC panel that the above jobs I have undertaken, have been carried out with full regard to proper work behaviour and professionalism at all times, whilst adhering to the required codes of conduct. Working in the present industry of telecoms, I am dealing with sensitive data such as mobile numbers, bank details and personal address’s. I have upheld the integrity of the company, whilst further demonstrating that my behaviour, attitude & conduct towards staff and customers has completely turned around. Furthermore, it demonstrates to the respected panel that I have taken positive steps to demonstrate a total shift in my professional conduct and behaviour going forward. I am regarded as a senior member of the team having been in my present role for over 4 years now.
This present role involves daily interaction with staff members across the various departments if required, as well as the direct communication with clients through conversation on the phone or through email. Due to the nature of the role we are also required to carry out due diligence on clients, looking at online activity and social media accounts. Previously I was not involved with social media etc., however due to work interaction I have now joined social media.
May I take this opportunity once again to make aware to the respected members of the HCPC panel that I have demonstrated total professionalism throughout this time and furthermore proved that I have shown positive changes to move away from previous bad practice concerning behaviour and conduct, which lead to the complaints being made.
With relation to all of the improvements that I have made and continue to make regarding my conduct and behaviour, it has provided me with a massive opportunity to reflect on my past conduct. I would not like to imagine how the affected persons must have felt following the complaints, but rest assured respected panel members its behaviour that I vow never to repeat. The insight into my conduct has allowed me to look back at my actions many times over the last 6 years. My feelings have not changed during this period, I am just as much ashamed of my behaviour and conduct now as I was immediately following my actions. I need to prove not only to the respected members of the HCPC panel but also myself that my continued reform and complete change in standards have not been in vain. Also looking forward my past conduct has been entirely eradicated and will not be replicated in the future. I sincerely hope that this point is noted by the respected members of the HCPC panel.

Education
Through process of learning and education I have kept myself focussed on the academic knowledge and skills required for a diagnostic radiographer. As part of this process, I have completed extensive courses online in a wide variety of subjects relating directly to the core knowledge required.
The learning has been carried out in a variety of ways from online courses, reading literature relating to healthcare & radiography as well as clinical hours (30 days) in a radiology department, which was done as part of the return to practice procedure. The online learning has taken part largely since July 2020.
I would also like the respected members of the HCPC panel to know that I have taken an active interest in the current and common practices with the radiography profession. This was done once again through online access to healthcare and radiology websites and magazines. I have also had access to the online training portal through High Wycombe Hospital, which I have been able to access remotely enabling me to continue the up to date training.
As part of my return to practice procedure I have also completed more than 30 courses online, ranging from NHS fraud to current Covid 19 procedures, as well as complaint handling. This has helped me immensely in gaining an insight into current practices and guidelines surrounding the global pandemic. Please see the full detailed list of courses, as well as the certificate of completion from the respected agencies under tab “formal Study” in spreadsheet.
My reading of radiographic literature has been fairly constant over the past 3 years, please also see the attached list for literature read over this period and leading up to the present day.
I have also read extensive literature on personal well-being, determination and willingness to change. This material has fully reinforced my overall purpose to move forward and change my behaviour in a positive way. The literature gave me great insight into the process change, by firstly accepting my mistakes and then making the changes to move forward.
A large part of my education in this process has of course been my ability and willingness to learn from the mistakes that I have made. Through a process of reflection, understanding and education I have learnt that I ignored the high standards set by the HCPC and allowed my conduct to lapse. I have also realised through the same process how I am expected to behave from a professional point of view, and that the HCPC codes of conduct must be upheld and adhered at all times.

Charity Work
As a Sikh I have always believed in carrying out work for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I have been involved extensively with charity work for well over 15 years. Completing London marathons, and a number of great south runs, all for good causes. This is something that I have enjoyed very much and find hugely rewarding.
One particular charity that resonates with me personally is Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY). My brother passed away from sudden adult death syndrome in February 2011 at the age of 26. I was with him at the time of his death as it occurred in the emergency room of my then hospital of work. Since this event I have been involved with CRY, helping them raise awareness of this condition whilst also raising money. The events we have taken part in have include an annual 5mile walk in London, attending bereavement days, and talks that share experiences relating to this condition.
I have recently taken part in a pre-recorded radio interview for a national Asian radio station as they have become a partner of CRY. Please see attached email inviting me to be interviewed by the CEO of CRY, Dr Cox.
The charity work that I and my family have done has been rewarding to us all and has made us feel very proud of giving back and sharing our experiences. It has made me personally realise the sense of loss in more ways than just death itself. Holding onto those things we regard as dear and appreciating their true value has been a valuable lesson that I have learnt for sure.
I want to take this opportunity to clarify this last point to the respected members of the HCPC panel. When I was in full in time employment as a Senior 1 radiographer, I not only enjoyed my job but also found it hugely rewarding.
When I had lost this position through my own wrong doing, I realised and appreciated just what I’d had. There isn’t a day that passes where I deeply regret my actions, and wish that I had not acted in the manner which resulted in these consequences. I can only hope that the respected members of the HCPC panel see that I have corrected my behaviour and reset my codes of conduct to a level that will allow me to be restored to the register once again.
I am desperately eager to be get back into healthcare and rebuild my career again so that I can offer my skills and knowledge once again, and more importantly prove to myself as well as the respected panel members that my behaviour has been permanently corrected.

Reflection
Looking back on my actions which lead to the striking off sanction 6 years ago has enabled me to take full responsibility of these actions and move forward. I have been on a hard journey which has given me the opportunity to have a long in-depth look at myself. This opportunity albeit completely unplanned has meant I have analysed, reviewed & transformed my behaviour. This process has been a sharp learning experience for me, through constantly looking at ways of eradicating and changing my behaviour, I have largely done this through reflection, education & the willingness to change. To realise the effects of my actions which led to my current situation has really motivated me to improve myself so that these actions will not be repeated in the future.
The reflection process has helped me as an on-going standard that I have worked towards over the entire period since the sanction were imposed. Through accepting my mistakes, it has helped me move on and concentrate on eradicating this behaviour, so that it cannot be repeated going forward.
The standards that I have now set myself and work towards concentrate wholly on remaining professional within the workplace with both clients and staff members alike. I also completely appreciate the fact that my behaviour was not acceptable in any workplace and have come a long way in personal development. Once again, I have concentrated in a complete shift of attitude and behaviour.

Return to Practice
Throughout this entire period, it has always been my sole intention to return to practice once I was able to as stated by the HCPC guidelines. As I have covered in great depth in this statement, I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate reform and development.
I initially started the process of return to practice in February 2020, this marked the 5 years since the sanction was imposed, however due to the current global pandemic these plans were put on hold. I did remain positive and continued to make enquiries regarding my position, which was done directly in accordance with, and guidance by the HCPC. I was able to continue my learning, education & reform by completing online courses and trying to arrange clinical time over the past year.

In an attempt to help me find a clinical placement, I registered myself with 2 reputable medical agencies who specialise in radiography. In order to become fully compliant with them I was required to fulfil a series of on-line courses ranging across a whole spectrum of medical subjects (please see attached certificates of course undertaken).
During the latter part of 2020, I received a reply back from Buckinghamshire NHS Health Trust inviting me to the radiology department at High Wycombe General Hospital. The process to arrange my clinical visits started from there, and I was in communication directly with the radiology lead and the HR department.
Due to my current work commitments, I was able to fulfil the return to practice over 2 separate visits which included 2 weeks in January and 2 weeks in February 2021. I was able to fully maximise the time over these 2 visits by completing the required 30 days for the return to practice procedure.
The 2 visits went incredibly well, and I was made to feel welcome and a part of the team. I worked under supervision the entire time in the general department, urgent treatment centre, cardiac, dentals and portables. The total of 4 weeks spent in the clinical environment also reinforced my decision to return to practice. Although the working environment was very different to what I was familiar with due the current pandemic, it strongly reinforced to me that I truly wanted to return. Please see a breakdown of my clinical duties & reflection over the 2 visits.
As well as the 30 days clinical time, I have spent a vast amount of time (25 days) in private study. This primarily involved reading an extensive amount of literature as outlined above.
I want to take this opportunity to point out to the respected members of the HCPC panel that I realise now by having spoken to the HCPC that I should have submitted this statement of restoration first. However, if the HCPC panel deem it necessary to complete the return to practice (clinical element) again, then I would be more than happy to do so in accordance with their requirements.

Summary of Statement
The past 6 years has taken me on a journey where I have addressed issues relating to my behaviour and conduct and make big changes to demonstrate that I have corrected this conduct. This journey of course has not been easy, however it was one that was imperative to take. A large part of this journey has consisted of reflection, education & reform, which has helped me a great deal in this entire process.
I want to wholeheartedly apologise to the patient and staff members involved in these complaints, and it was never my intention to knowingly cause any harm or distress to anyone concerned. My actions have been deeply regrettable, and I would like the respected members of the HCPC panel to know that I have completely learnt from these ill-judged actions, and will never be repeated again.
The complaints that were made against me related to my conduct and behaviour, and not my ability, knowledge or skills, therefore my whole effort has been to change the behaviour which directly related to the complaints made.
By my own admission, these mistakes resulted directly from my own actions, which I strongly believe I have corrected and should now be considered for readmission back onto the HCPC register.
I still have so much I wish to achieve within radiography, and it is my primary desire to return where I can rebuild my clinical career once again. I also want to share my knowledge & skills with the new generation of radiographers as well as continue learning from my peers.
I am asking the respected members of the HCPC panel to take into consideration the journey that I have been on, and how far I have come from 6 years ago. My whole outlook on work, life and family has changed permanently, and I wish now to move forward to once again work as a respected radiographer.
I have learnt so many valuable lessons over this period, and assure the respected members of the HCPC panel that my past mistakes will never be repeated. My family has been a huge driving force in this entire process, and I must prove to myself as well as them that these efforts have not been in vain.

My behaviour and conduct has been on a constant improvement over the past 6 years, and I want to assure the respected panel that I aim to continue in this form in the future. I have had no such repeat complaints since the time the sanctions were imposed, which clearly demonstrates to the respected members of the HCPC that my behaviour has been corrected, and will continue to be improved.
I am more than happy to undergo suggested training that maybe put forward by the HCPC, but I am now desperate to resume my radiography career. I cannot emphasise enough how desperate I am to return to clinical duties and prove that my behaviour has been corrected and eradicated.
Respected members of the HCPC panel, please take this statement of restoration as an honest and accurate account of my journey over the past 6 years in my bid to return to practice. I have been as honest and candid as one can be to provide the respected panel with information and evidence which supports my readmission application. I will always regret my actions, and of course I am deeply sorry for my ill-judged and non-professional behaviour. It was never ever my intention to knowingly cause any persons harm or distress in any way whatsoever.
I still have great deal I wish to achieve within Radiography such as completing a PhD someday as well as sharing my skills and knowledge with new generation of Radiographers. I humbly request to the respected members of the HCPC panel to please allow me to once again practice the profession I dearly enjoy and to fulfil the goals I have set myself.
Respected members of the HCPC panel, to bring this statement of restoration to a close I would like to once again be allowed to practice radiography and rebuild my career. It is my strong belief that I have proved to the respected panel that I have eradicated my past behaviour and therefore am now ready to be restored to the HCPC register.

Documents provided as proof:
- Charity CRY interview
- High Wycombe Hospital reference - - Richard Watson-Darby
- Work Reference – Patrick Hilton
- Personal reference - Andrea Fowkes
- Training certificates from agency
- Return to practice form
- Readmission form
- Excel spreadsheet of clinical, private & formal study (4 Tabs)
- Signed proof of ID (UK Passport & Drivers Licence with Photos’)
- Reflective diary of clinical placement

13. In a subsequent addendum bundle Mr Singh-Digpal provided a further statement, along with further testimonials, a reflective diary of his clinical practice, a Study Tracker, training certificates, including online courses on professional boundaries and lone worker training, completed on 2 April 2022. In that subsequent statement Mr Singh-Digpal said:

“Firstly, may I take this opportunity to thank the respected members of the panel for my case to be heard today.
Since my striking off order just over 7 years ago, my life took a dramatic turn, which set into motion a journey of discovery & self-realisation. During this time I have had much time to contemplate my actions and consequences as a result.
I have used this time productively to remedy my behaviour & conduct, not just in a work environment but also on an extreme personal level. I can assure the respected members of the panel that I have addressed my actions and behaviour on a daily basis, which has provided me with the motivation and determination to move forward.
I am of course deeply sorry and hugely ashamed of the allegations that were made against me, and have made this experience my entire goal to correct my behaviour and completely eradicate any such future incidents.
I have only been allowed to move forward by looking back and addressing these issues on a very personal level. There is no other person other than myself that should be held accountable for the consequences of my behaviour. My actions were wholly unprofessional & and entirely irresponsible for a healthcare worker. With hindsight, reflection & most importantly insight, I very quickly realised that I had made monumental mistakes which needed to be addressed immediately.
It has been through this process of reflection and insight which has helped me address the issues at the core.
I now want to take this opportunity to look at the individual allegations, and provide the respected members of the panel my reflection & insight.
STAFF MEMBER B – Where professional boundaries were crossed, referred to staff member B as “attractive & beautiful” & asked to email staff member B for non-work related reasons.
My actions towards staff member B were entirely wrong and I am deeply sorry that I behaved in such a manner. When I look back at my behaviour, I find it very wrong that I behaved in such a way, especially within a work and professional environment. There was no reason to address staff member B other than being polite. I believe my choice of language towards staff member B fell way short of professional behaviour towards a fellow healthcare worker. With insight, this was no way to behave or address a healthcare worker under any circumstances. Looking back, I have learnt that when addressing healthcare workers in a professional setting, then this must be done both properly and professionally at all times. I want to also take this opportunity to make the respected members of the panel aware that I have learnt a very valuable lesson in this and all matters being addressed today & there shall be no repeat behaviour going forward.
I had no reason to ask for an email address, as once again there was no clinical need to do so. I can wholly understand now the reasons why a complaint was made and can imagine the way staff member B would have felt following this experience.
On reflection, if I was approached by a fellow healthcare worker in the corridor and was asked for my email address following a short interaction, then I would have found this strange, especially as there was no clinical reason to do so.
With the passage of time I can now see that I crossed professional boundaries, whilst showing total disregard of these boundaries.
With reflection and insight I should never have approached staff member B and certainly should not have interacted with the staff member B, as I had no clinical reason to do so.
I behaved in manner that is not acceptable in any professional environment, which displayed a total disregard for the code of conduct as set out by the HCPC. This code of conduct ensures that Radiographers uphold and maintain high standards at all times. These standards should be adhered to and followed at all times, however in my case some of these standards fell short of the expected levels.
The Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers has been of immense help to me during my time away from healthcare, I have referred to it many times and it has really made things clear and simple for me to now understand that my behaviour was unacceptable. The highest standards are to be followed at all times, with no or very little room for exceptions. I have focussed on the codes that I needed to most, where my conduct was concerned to really help me channel my efforts specifically to improve my personal and professional conduct.
This link was sourced directly from the HCPC website:
https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-proficiency/radiographers/

I would like to make direct reference to the HCPC code 2.2 which states the following “2.2 understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council”. It is with regret that these requirements were ignored at this time which therefore caused the outcome of my actions.
I also want to refer specifically to code 3.1 which refers to fitness to practice “3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct”. These were clearly not met as my professional conduct was that, not expected of Radiographer towards a fellow professional.
I think it is only deemed fair that I also include code 9, more so specifically code 9.1 & 9.2 “9.1 be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others”. This relates directly to my conduct towards staff member B, where my behaviour was unprofessional.
“9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent professional and collaboratively as a member of a team”. Code 9.2 is just as important, as this also relates to my conduct. Working in a multi-facetted professional environment, it is imperative that strong professional working relationships are forged and maintained, I acted in a manner that didn’t support this ethos, however with the passing of time I now realise the importance of building and maintaining these working relationships.
Since Feb 2015, I have come a long long way from this behaviour as I have worked in busy environments with daily interaction with people. I want to assure the panel that there has not been any such incident or similar in the last 8 or more years.

STAFF MEMBER C – Asked to email for non-work reasons.
My behaviour relating to staff member C, was once again completely wrong & I am deeply sorry for my actions and should never have put staff member C or myself in this position.
I can entirely understand why staff member C would have made the complaint against me as I had no reason to ask for an email address where there was no clinical reason to make contact.
I imagine that staff member C would have felt confused & maybe even uncomfortable by my actions, as before this I had had no real interaction with staff member C other than occasionally being on the same morning bus.
On reflection I should not have put myself in this position and in doing so I disregarded professional behaviour & boundaries, I would like once again refer to code 3.1 where high standards of personal and professional conduct were ignored.
I wish to once again emphasise to the respected members of the panel that there has been no repeat of this behaviour in the last 8 years. As well as this need for immediate and enforced change, I feel this has been aided by a complete reset in values. I took the decision to attend courses on personal and professional behaviour, some of which were participated as part of a group in workshop format, online and individual sessions.
By looking back at the allegations individually helped me understand that it was wrong to act in such a manner, this of course gave me a far better understanding of appreciating the feelings of those concerned. By seeing things from others perspective made the process of understanding so much clearer, in that the focus shifts which from me to the other party concerned.
By also reading literature on behaviour and working closer with people over the past 7 years has also given me a new found respect for working relationships both professionally and personally. The fact that I have worked extremely hard for myself and my family to eradicate my past behaviour further enforces no further incidents or complaints.

PATIENT A – Adjusted patients gown whilst providing no reason to do so, touched the pelvic area without reason, Invited patient to coffee & asked the patient not to let anyone know they had been X-rayed as a favour.
Matters concerning patient A were deeply troubling for me as I feel I totally let myself and my respected profession down. Up to the point in question, I had performed many kidney, ureter & bladder (KUB) exams. Always performing to the highest standard possible as well adhering to protocols.
I am deeply sorry for my actions and the way that I made patient A feel as a result.
Looking back, I can only say that this was a huge mistake on my part and therefore allowing professional standards to slip below the expected levels. I wish to refer to codes 3.1 where high standards were not met due to complacency or not taking patient A’s feelings into account. These important yet everyday factors were ignored as I probably felt over comfortable with the patient, a big mistake to my detriment as a result.
Irrespective of the examine being carried out, I most definitely should have explained each and every action to patient A for 2 reasons, firstly if touching the patient, then I should have informed patient A before doing so. Secondly, where touching in a sensitive or private area due to the exam in question, then I should have without doubt informed patient A of my actions and equally my reasons for doing so, in this case to find bony landmarks.
This basic principle was once again ignored at the time, however to gain insight in this matter I have used the HCPC code of conduct 8.1 & 8.3 below to reinforce my practice going forward.
8.1 be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others
8.3 understand how communication skills affect assessment and engagement of service users and how the means of communication should be modified to address and take account of factors such as age, capacity, learning ability and physical ability
I can say with complete confidence to the respected members of the panel that I have used codes 8.1 & 8.3 of the HCPC code of proficiency for Radiographers to reset & reinforce the change process.
To help with this incident, I have looked back many times and have put myself in patient A’s position. If that was me having a KUB performed and the radiographer adjusted my gown without explaining reasons, then I would feel exactly the same, perhaps a feeling of non-involvement and uncomfortableness as a direct result of the way I performed the exam.
If patient A’s gown needed to be adjusted for whatever reason, then I absolutely should have explained my reasons for doing so to the patient directly, and with hindsight sought assistance from a female member of staff.
Where patient A’s pelvic area was touched during the KUB exam, then once again these actions should have been fully explained and communicated with the patient throughout the exam so that the patient could have foreseen every step of the procedure.
Keeping patient A informed of my actions throughout the procedure where touch was involved, would I feel have been far more professional and certainly more informed for the patient, allowing her to feel more involved in the procedure. I refer again to code 8.1 specifically where advice & instructions are given to patients.
The invitation for coffee to patient A should never have been made under any circumstances whatsoever. I now fully understand the way patient A was made to feel at this time, and of course it was never my intention to cause any distress to patient A. I am very sorry for my ill-judged actions at this time and can assure the respected members of the panel that I have learnt from this and past mistakes.
The allegation which relates to patient A x-rayed as a favour was entirely my mistake and I completely accept my actions as wrong and unprofessional. If xraying patient A as a favour was suggested, then this was entirely said in jest.
Under no circumstances should a favour have been suggested at any point. Patient A presented to the department prior to an Ultrasound scan with a form that indicated a KUB exam.
On reflection, patient A should have been x-rayed as a normal patient, rather than the suggestion of a favour was being carried out. I feel my actions in this matter should have so much different, & I can see now why patient A felt that a favour was being carried out, rather than being made to feel like a normal service user.
On all matters involving patient A, I strongly feel my actions were wrong & crossed professional boundaries. I now strongly feel that I could have dealt with this matter so differently, in that where patient A’s gown needed to be adjusted, then I should have asked for assistance by a female member of staff and or communicated my entire actions with patient A.

STAFF MEMBER E – Showed staff member massage oil in locker room & suggested staff member E come back after 6pm to show use of oil.
My actions and behaviour towards staff member E were wholly wrong and totally un warranted in any circumstance.
I completely understand staff member E’s decision to make a complaint about my behaviour in this matter.
Up to this point I had a good working relationship with staff member E, & therefore deemed my actions as a friendly gesture at the time.
I can now see this was wrong and I crossed professional boundaries, which would no doubt have made staff member E the need to complain as a result of my actions.
I should never have put myself or staff member E in a position where she was made to feel uncomfortable. I have learnt that I abused my position as senior member of staff.
The allegation which relates to asking staff member E to come back after 6pm was wholly wrong and once again crossed professional boundaries on all levels. At the time, I had a good working relationship with staff member E, and looking back I felt it was OK, where with hindsight, I was being over familiar.
I can see how this would have made staff member E feel, and understand the reasons why my actions were brought to attention. Putting myself in staff member E’s position, then I would have felt uneasy by this experience as this is not the way to behave with fellow professionals.
I cannot emphasise enough as to how my actions were unprofessional, however I want to assure the respected members of the panel that this behaviour has been closely looked at and remedied through professional conduct literature as well as watching several videos relating to conduct in the work place. I have included this video as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oq9lv8HseQ – Lets Talk About Professionalism
I chose to include this video as an example as it focuses on the main areas of what being a professional entails such as behaviour, knowledge Integrity & excellence. This video is only 3.40 mins long, but concentrate these points nicely. The biggest lesson that I have learnt from this example is that professionalism is there to uphold and maintain the highest standards both in work and life as a whole.

PATIENT B: - Invited patient B for coffee despite refusal, Invited for drink after work, suggested giving mobile number & suggestion of coming back after work to collect x-ray results & go for a coffee.
Looking back on these allegations, I am truly ashamed of myself that I behaved in a manner that is not fit for any healthcare worker in my position.
Firstly, I should never have invited patient B for a coffee in any circumstance and now understand fully how this behaviour was non-professional. I am deeply sorry as to how I would have made the patient feel in her position and wholly realise that this was wrong.
Inviting patient B for a drink was once again completely wrong & I should never have spoken to patient B in such a manner. I have no justification for my behaviour at this time, therefore my actions were completely not necessary.
Giving any patient or offering to give a mobile number is not suitable behaviour of a healthcare professional, as this would deem to cross boundaries. I of course realise this now with reflection and hindsight & totally understand from patient B’s position as to why this was wrong in any circumstance.
I should have directed patient B through the correct channels in order to gain results for the exam undertaken, rather than offering mobile number. I can now see how this crossed professional boundaries.
Where patient B was invited to comeback after working hours to collect results and go for a coffee with massively ill-judged and a huge mistake. Professional boundaries were crossed here & a healthcare worker in my position should never have put patient B in this position.
The idea of the urgent reporting service should have been explained to patient B without the need for personal intervention.
My actions were deeply regrettable & with a deeper understanding of the consequences I am unreservedly sorry for what happened.
The time I have spent away from healthcare has allowed me to fully appreciate a greater understanding and insight into how a healthcare worker is expected to behave as well as upholding the high standards outlined by the HCPC in terms of conduct at all times.
By my own admission, I have collectively made big mistakes where my professional conduct and standards slipped below the levels expected as a Senior Radiographer.
I want to take this opportunity to unreservedly apologise collectively to the staff members, patients, respected members of the panel, the HCPC and of course healthcare professionals for my actions which lead to my striking off order.
The responsibility regarding the above matters lay solely with me, therefore it was up to me to correct my behaviour during the past 7 years. This realisation and help has come in the form of education, course, counselling & sharing my experience with those closet to me.
I want to absolutely assure the respected members of the panel that I have reviewed my conduct at great length have undertaken education to make shifts in behaviour so that these actions outlined will never again be repeated.
Since my striking off order, I have been employed with jobs that involve interaction with people on a face to face basis, there has been no repeat incidences or anything that has warranted cause for concern in any way.
My present employment for the past 5 years has involved an office setting involving teams and interaction with customers on the phone. Once again, there has been no incidents relating to my conduct or behaviour in any matter.
I strongly believe that I have taken great steps forward in putting my past behaviour and conduct behind me, which has allowed me to take a fresh outlook on my life and therefore move forward.
I want to prove to the respected members of the panel, the HCPC and of course myself that these efforts in correcting my conduct have not been in vain.
In Jan & Feb of 2021 I was invited to High Wycombe Hospital as part of my “return to practice” procedure.
This experience was thoroughly enjoyed and completely justified my decision to seek to return to healthcare.
I have since Feb 2021 returned to High Wycombe Hospital in April 2022 to fulfil voluntary shifts within the Radiology department.
I have also taken this opportunity to complete online courses, watch videos & read literature on professional conduct for healthcare workers, along with making reference directly to the HCPC code of conduct. This journey through reflection, insight & education has me that as a healthcare professional, the highest standards are expected and should be upheld at all time. As healthcare professionals, we are in a position of immense trust, and therefore our behaviour, conduct and accountability is of paramount importance.
Furthermore, my visits to High Wycombe Hospital allowed me to put these principles into practice directly whist completing my return to practice placement last year and more recently earlier this month with additional volunteer work within the radiography department.
I have included a reference from the Superintendent Radiographer of High Wycombe Hospital, which gives an insight into my time spent there.
As well as my experience, qualifications & knowledge in radiography, I believe I have so much left to offer and share.
I want to assure the respected members of the panel as well as the HCPC that I am willing to undergo further training & education as deemed necessary that will further underpin my reasons to return to healthcare if required.
This experience has been a challenging time for me and my family, however it has been a journey of determination and motivation. May I also take this opportunity to thank my family, friends and of course my Faith who have whole heartedly supported me as well as encouraged me during this time to remain focussed and achieve my ultimate goal.
I have no doubt in my mind that I have put the past firmly behind me and have used this time away from radiography to totally reset my values, ethics and professional conduct through reflection, insight and education.
Respected members of the panel, I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak & express my desire to return to practice.”

14. Mr Singh-Digpal gave oral evidence at this restoration hearing. In his oral evidence he confirmed the content of the above statements and the efforts he had made to recognise his failings, to remediate them and to ensure they never happened again.
15. In answer to questions, Mr Singh-Digpal said that he should never have behaved in the way he had because it was not professional conduct. He had thought it was okay to embrace the member of staff in 2008 but with the benefit of reflection and hindsight realised that it was not. He said he now knows where the boundaries are and that he must remain professional at all times and not get into people’s “personal space”. He added that at the time of the matters in 2012/2013 he was in a “vulnerable position” due to personal circumstances and thought that it was “okay for me to behave in the way I did.” He said that there had been no further such incidents in three jobs he had had since and he would never put himself in such a situation again.
16. It was pointed out to him that the jobs he been working in since being struck off were different to that of a radiographer where he would often be alone with patients or other members of staff and he was asked how he could assure the Panel that his behaviour had changed so that something like this does not happen again. The Applicant had some difficulty answering this question, saying “… with what I have been through, I can give you assurances that I would never put myself in that situation. I’ve learnt so much with insight and with the understanding of the incidents that actually occurred that I’m not going to put myself in that position ever again.” When asked about the impact of his behaviour on people he line-managed, the Applicant said he had considered that and one should lead by example and that he had failed to do. He also said that when you are being shadowed by students, for example, you must “at all times show the very highest of clinical practice and standards and so they can learn from your examples.”
17. The Applicant said he recognised that he lost a lot of trust from his colleagues and also probably a lot of respect professionally and clinically and that they would also have felt let down. He was pressed on how he thought the subjects of his inappropriate behaviour might have felt, but it was only when the Chair suggested they might have felt abused, violated or intimidated that he agreed with such suggestions.
18. Mr Singh-Digpal also provided a document reflecting his recent visits to Wycombe Hospital on 9, 16 and 23 April 2022, where he did volunteer shifts at the urgent treatment centre. He said the time was spent working in a Radiology department, taking x-rays of injured, post-operative and In-patients, under the supervision of a qualified Radiographer. He said that the work made him feel that his decision to re-apply to the HCPC Register was correct. He said he felt comfortable in his settings with both patients and staff members and he had “worked extremely hard at resetting my conduct and this has been reflected in my practice not only clinically but in my daily conduct in the past 7 years.” He emphasised his passion for the profession and his strong desire to be able to return to it.
19. In a letter dated 22 March 2021 (and essentially repeated on 28 April 2022), the Radiology Site Lead/Co-ordinator at Wycombe General Hospital, Richard Watson-Darby, described how Mr Singh-Digpal undertook his Return to Practice clinical placement in the Radiology department of Wycombe General Hospital. He described Mr Singh-Digpal as “very professional and prompt in how [he] interacts, asking keen and pertinent questions.” He said Mr Singh-Digpal came across well and that he “was impressed and appreciated his honesty and openness around the situation that led to his removal from the register but also his journey back to this point and the passion he has to return. Throughout his time with us Surinder showed a very professional attitude always being punctual and presenting himself in a professional way.” Mr Watson-Darby went on to say he had asked other radiographers about Mr Singh-Digpal’s time with them and he listed some of the responses he received as follows:
• Excellent member of the team
• Very willing to assist with work like going on portables
• Very friendly and got on well with staff
• Good Radiographic skills
• Communicated well with patients
• Punctual

20. Mr Watson-Darby concluded by saying:

“We really enjoyed having Surinder in our department undertaking his clinical hours. He was a positive character who came across as genuinely thankful for the opportunity to regain his registration. The team all spoke very highly of him and we would be happy to have him come back to us in the future.”

21. Other testimonials spoke of Mr Singh-Digpal as a kind, caring and compassionate man, well liked, warm and generous with a passion for healthcare.
22. Three of the testimonial providers attended and gave oral evidence, namely Richard Watson-Darby, Christine Evershed and Comfort Musaigwa, in accordance with the statements/letters they provided.
23. Ms Mustard, on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that Mr Singh-Digpal had demonstrated great insight into his misconduct and that he was a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register.
24. Mr D’Alton, on behalf of the HCPC, informed the Panel that, following the evidence provided to date the Applicant remained impaired and is not fit to return to the Register. Mr D’Alton thus asked the Panel to reject the application for restoration.

Decision

25. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel remained conscious that the burden of proving that Mr Singh-Digpal is a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register was on the Applicant and that the applicable standard of proof is the civil one, namely on the balance of probabilities.
26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and reminded itself of the contents the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Restoration to the Register”.
27. In considering this application, the Panel paid due regard to all the documents in this case, the oral evidence and the submissions made by both parties.
28. Under article 33(5) of the Health Professions Order 2001 a Panel must be satisfied, before restoring an Applicant to the register, that:
i. An Applicant has met the general requirements for registration; and
ii. That the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to their striking off.

29. In order to address the latter of these two requirements, the practice note on ‘Restoration to the Register’ clarifies that a panel should take into account:
i. Whether the Applicant now accepts the reasons given for his striking off and has shown insight into those matters;
ii. Whether the Applicant has now resolved the issues raised by the previous Panel; and
iii. Whether the Applicant has taken other remediative steps.

30. The Panel noted the stance taken by the HCPC and that the Council opposed the application.
31. The Panel acknowledged Ms Mustard’s submission that the HCPC’s restoration process recognises that there may be circumstances whereby an applicant is able to show they have learned from their mistakes and can assure a panel that they would not be repeated.
32. The Panel noted that no criticism had been made of the Applicant’s clinical skills and that he was well-regarded as a Radiographer by his colleagues. There was evidence before the Panel confirming that the Applicant had successfully completed a return to practice procedure, having undertaken shifts at High Wycombe Hospital in January and February 2021 and then returning to undertake additional voluntary shifts in April 2022. Mr D’Alton confirmed that the HCPC was satisfied that the Applicant met the general requirements for registration and the Panel saw no reason to doubt this. The key issue for the Panel was whether it was satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to the striking off.
33. This misconduct took place almost ten years ago and much has happened since. As detailed above, the Applicant has been in various different forms of employment. He has kept up to date with his profession and completed the return to practice procedure. He continues to carry out voluntary shifts at High Wycombe Hospital and the Radiology Site Lead/Co-ordinator at that hospital has clearly been impressed by his clinical skills, his professionalism and his interaction with patients and colleagues. There has been no suggestion of any repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to him being struck off. In addition the Applicant has provided two very detailed reflective statements. He has done a significant amount of training, including an online course on professional boundaries. He has provided a wealth of positive testimonials and he has given oral evidence to this Panel.
34. The Panel was in no doubt that the matters found proved against the Applicant were serious, as noted by the panel that decided to strike him off and as accepted by the Applicant himself. In addition, the behaviour continued for an extended period. In deciding that the only appropriate sanction was one of strike off, the original panel was most concerned about the Applicant’s lack of insight into his behaviour and the evasive way in which he gave his evidence. Furthermore, the behaviour in 2012/2013 was of the same general character as earlier behaviour ion 2008 and 2011, as referred to above by the original panel, suggesting the Applicant had not learned from his earlier inappropriate behaviour towards female work colleagues. In addition, having been dismissed from Portsmouth on 11 December 2012, and whilst that matter was under investigation by the HCPC, he repeated his inappropriate behaviour in two further incidents at Southampton in July 2013. One instance involved a patient and the other inappropriate behaviour towards a junior female colleague, which the panel found to have been sexually motivated, and which resulted in his locum contract being terminated. His conduct had caused considerable worry and alarm to patients and colleagues.
35. As noted by the panel that struck him off, certain of the misconduct found proved by the panel was sexually motivated. Such behaviour by a registered health professional is unacceptable, particularly when it occurs in a hospital environment when the Applicant had been on duty and was directed towards a junior member of staff.
36. The key issue for this Panel, therefore, was the level of insight now shown by the Applicant into his misconduct. At his final hearing that panel determined that the Applicant had shown “virtually no insight into why his conduct is unacceptable for a registered health professional.” That panel went on to say that the Applicant had had “numerous opportunities to reflect on his behaviour since 2008 and it is instructive that despite all the disciplinary interviews and actions taken by employers since then, he does not appear to have learned anything from the experience. This Panel has given him numerous opportunities to explain his insight and reassure it that he is no longer at risk of repeating the behaviour, but he has responded with bland assurances about his future conduct rather than a credible description of his insight into why his behaviour was unacceptable. In addition, the registrant has presented no evidence of measures undertaken in respect of remediation.”
37. In concluding that a striking-off order was the only appropriate and proportionate order to make, the original panel observed, “The Panel is not satisfied that Mr. Singh-Digpal has recognised any of the criticisms of his conduct identified in this hearing and the Panel has grave concerns as to whether he is capable of remedying them. The Panel is reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that it is now more than six years since the first disciplinary action was taken against him and despite further complaints emerging, he has failed to take any of the opportunities afforded to him to address or put an end to his inappropriate behaviour.”
38. With regard to insight the Panel considers this continues to be sadly lacking. The Applicant still does not appear to understand or appreciate the significance of, and the impact of, his actions on the various patients and work colleagues concerned. He was provided with ample opportunity in all his written reflections, and subsequently his oral evidence, to satisfy the Panel that he had proper insight into his behaviour, but had failed to do so. It was only when the Chair suggested those subjected to his inappropriate behaviour might have felt abused, violated or intimidated that the Applicant finally acknowledged that this might have been the case. This indicated to the Panel that he had simply not thought about his behaviour in these terms.
39. The Panel is concerned that the Applicant’s summary of momentary lapses in his usual high standards through reckless actions over a short period seriously downplays the breadth and seriousness of his misconduct. His pattern of behaviour suggests fundamental issues with his understanding of professional boundaries and how to behave appropriately with female patients and colleagues. Of additional concern is the Applicant’s failure to acknowledge that his actions in relation to Colleague E were sexually motivated. When questioned specifically about the finding of sexual motivation, the Applicant outlined “If this was the case then I accept that”. This response suggests to the Panel that the Applicant has failed to take time to consider the previous panel's findings and the implications of those findings. By merely stating he accepts the findings as made, rather than acknowledging what they amount to and their implication, the Applicant failed to show any depth of insight.
40. The Panel is primarily concerned with its overarching role of protecting the public. Before it could find the Applicant to be a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register it would have to be satisfied that he had demonstrated significant insight into his offending behaviour and provided cogent evidence of remediation so that the Panel could be satisfied that his behaviour would not be repeated. Although the Applicant had provided a wealth of information he had not, in the Panel’s view, dealt adequately with these two keys issues.
41. The Panel considered the Applicant’s reflective statements demonstrated a surface level of insight and no real understanding of the true impact of his actions on the patients and colleagues involved. In his oral evidence, despite strong direction from the Panel during questioning, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he has truly developed insight into his misconduct and the impact of his actions. Indeed, he continued to minimise his past misconduct by describing his behaviour as brief departures from his normal high standards.
42. Although the Applicant has recently undertaken formal training directly relevant to his past misconduct, by way of an online course on professional boundaries, he has yet to show any form of developed understanding of professional boundaries following on from that training. Furthermore, until he is able to show proper insight into his behaviour it is difficult to see how he will be able to do so. When asked about what he had learnt from his studies and the course on professional boundaries, the Applicant outlined that it had taught him his conduct was wrong and not to act in the same way again, providing little by way of further explanation.
43. The Panel did take note of the positive references and testimonials provided, however they did not directly address the Applicant’s learning, insight and remediation from his past misconduct. Furthermore, the witnesses called by the Applicant to speak on his behalf confirmed a lack of openness from the Applicant about the full extent of his past misconduct and one of them did not even know that he had been struck off the register.
44. In all the circumstances, the Panel is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register and his application is refused.
45. In reaching this decision the Panel was aware that it would come as a great disappointment to the Applicant. However, as stated, the Panel’s primary role is to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. It is also to maintain public confidence in the profession, whilst declaring and upholding standards of conduct and performance. Whilst in no way binding a future panel, in the event that the Applicant decides to renew his application in the future, a panel hearing such an application would be assisted by:
• a targeted reflective piece focusing on what the Applicant understands was likely to have been the impact of his behaviour on the patients and work colleagues concerned and the impact on the reputation of the profession;
• testimonials from health-care professionals who are aware of the fact that he has been struck off the Register and the reasons why.

Restoration not granted.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Surinder Singh-Digpal