Mr Sethuraman Pala Srinivasan

Facts proved: 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c)i, 6(c)iii, 6(c)iv, 6 (d), 6 (e), 6 (f), 7
Facts not proved: 6 (c) ii.
Grounds: Misconduct
Fitness to Practise impaired: Yes
Sanction: Striking Off Order and ISO

Background to the Allegation
4. The Applicant had been employed as a Band 7 Physiotherapist by Humber NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) from May 2010, working in the Older Adults Mental Health Team.

5. One of the Applicant’s junior colleagues was Colleague A, who was at that time employed by the Trust as a Band 3 Physiotherapy Technical Instructor. Colleague B had commenced employment with the Trust as a Physiotherapy Assistant in October 2012. The Applicant was Colleague B’s line manager responsible for Colleague B’s training and supervision. After she had been in her role for approximately six weeks Colleague B discussed with Colleague A her concerns about the behaviour of the Applicant. Colleague A suggested that Colleague B should speak to the Superintendent Physiotherapists about her concerns. Colleague B did so, and subsequently made a written statement about her concerns dated 12 November 2012.

6. The Trust appointed an Investigating Officer, PM, who suspended the Applicant before he then went on sick leave. On 20 November 2012 JK, Service Manager was appointed as Investigating Officer. At this time the Applicant had returned from sick leave and was working under supervision. JK interviewed Colleague B on 3 December 2012. After this interview the Applicant was suspended. Colleague B alleged that the Applicant had given her unwanted attention, including making inappropriate comments. Colleague B also alleged that the Applicant had slapped a patient during a home visit. As part of her investigation, JK interviewed Colleague A. In her interview Colleague A stated that the Applicant had made inappropriate comments to her and that on one occasion he had touched her bottom. During her investigation JK interviewed the Applicant. He denied any wrongdoing.

7. On 10 and 12 April 2013, the Trust had held a disciplinary hearing. The Applicant was dismissed, but successfully appealed his dismissal in July 2013 and was reinstated. He was downgraded to a Band 5 Physiotherapist and issued with a Final Warning for the period of 18 months effective from 1 April 2013 and due to expire in October 2014.

8. Following his demotion, the Applicant worked at the East Community Riding Hospital (“East Riding”). He was responsible for the assessment and treatment of male and female patients with muscle and joint problems. His line manager was AG. The work of physiotherapists at East Riding was supported by administrative and reception staff who liaised with the physiotherapists. JW was an Administrative Assistant and Colleague C was a part time receptionist.

9. The Applicant had some difficulties in adapting to his new role and he lacked confidence. Approximately one month after his demotion he was placed under an informal capability procedure. The Applicant was provided with support and supervision and successfully completed the process in approximately April 2014.

10. On 3 October 2014, Colleague C disclosed to a friend that the Applicant had tried to kiss her and had inappropriately touched her. Colleague C spoke to AG who reported the concerns to VM, a Human Resources Manager at the Trust. A disciplinary investigation was initially put on hold because Colleague C reported the Applicant to the police. When Colleague C decided that she did not want to pursue the matter with the police, the Trust investigation proceeded.

11. The Applicant provided a mitigating statement for the disciplinary hearing dated 3 February 2015 in which he stated that he admitted the vast majority of the allegations in relation to Colleague C and apologised to her.

12. In reaching its decision on the facts of the Allegation, the panel did not find the Applicant to have been a credible witness. He had been reluctant to answer questions with a straight answer, had sometimes given lengthy answers which were not to the point and the panel had found his account of events to have been implausible. The Applicant had contradicted himself and had been evasive. The panel was particularly concerned about the Applicant’s position in regard to his mitigation statements. At the hearing the Applicant had said that he had only signed it on advice from his trade union representative and that its contents were incorrect. He had presented the mitigation statement because he believed that it was in his own interests and his family’s interests to do so. The panel indicated that it had concerns about the Applicant’s attitude and honesty and made a finding that the Applicant had lied under oath to the panel.

13. The panel concluded that its findings that the Applicant’s conduct in particulars 1 – 3, 5(b)-(c), and 6 were sexually motivated and involved a pattern of behaviour. It found that it was no co-incidence that Colleagues A, B and C were all young and junior to the Applicant and noted that Colleagues B and C were also similar in appearance. The panel decided that it was proper to draw the inference that from his conduct, the Applicant was sexually attracted to Colleagues A, B and C.

14. In relation to the statutory ground of misconduct: the panel concluded that when considered individually and when considered together, the Applicant’s conduct in each of the proved particulars fell seriously short of what would be proper in the circumstances and is sufficiently serious as to constitute misconduct.

15. The panel considered its findings in relation to sexually motivated behaviour (particulars 1 – 3, 5(b)-(c) and 6) had breached a fundamental tenet of the Physiotherapy profession. Each action or comment found proved was part of a pattern of behaviour which involved women who were young, vulnerable and less senior. The panel referred to there having been a pattern of insidious grooming behaviour, which had tended to escalate, and Colleague C had been sexually assaulted when the Applicant had kissed and touched her. The panel found the Applicant’s conduct to be misconduct.

16. The panel found that the Applicant had continued with his behaviour despite the findings of the Trust against him in relation to Colleagues A and B. The panel said that the Applicant had continued with similar and more serious actions with Colleague C when he knew his final warning was due to expire. The panel found the Applicant had showed a disregard for the sanctions which had been imposed on him by the Trust.

17. The panel found that the Applicant’s conduct in particular 5(a) was not sexually motivated but his remark had been sexist, and it was particularly offensive as it was made to a woman about junior female colleagues who had made serious allegations against him. The panel found this too constituted misconduct.

18. The panel found that the Applicant’s conduct in particular 4 when he had slapped a patient, saying “naughty boy”, infantilising Patient A, to have been a physical assault and a gross breach of trust. The panel also found the Applicant’s conduct towards Patient A’s wife when he hugged her and told her she could call him any time she needed a hug, to have been entirely inappropriate.

19. The panel found that the Applicant’s conduct had been in breach of (I) the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics: Standards 3, 7 and 13, (ii) in relation to the conduct in 2012, the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists standards 1a.1, 1a.8, 1b.1, and (iii) in relation to the 2014 conduct, the August 2013 Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists standards 2.2, 3.1, 9.1 and 9.2.

20. In considering whether the Applicant’s fitness to practise was impaired under the personal component, the panel found that the Applicant had some insight. He had admitted that his behaviour in hugging Patient A’s wife was inappropriate, that he had made an inappropriate comment when referring to female colleagues as the “weaker sex” and in his admission, although late, that he had made an inappropriate comment about Colleague B’s trousers. However, the panel found that the Applicant had no insight into the more serious allegations which he had denied. The panel referred to its finding that the Applicant had lied under oath because he had believed that it was in his interests to do so because he believed that he might maintain his registration, his ability to work in the UK, and for immigration reasons, his ability to live in the UK. The panel considered that the Applicant had, in a witness statement prepared for the hearing, continued to put his own interests first and noted that he had not acknowledged the impact of his conduct on his colleagues, the Trust or the profession.

21. The panel stated that the Applicant had appeared to demonstrate remorse in relation to Colleague C in his mitigation statement but that the Applicant had told the panel that this was not genuine remorse and that the statement he made was not true.

22. The panel found that there had been no meaningful remediation by the Applicant. It noted that after the Trust’s findings regarding Colleagues A and B, the Applicant had attended a training course on Professional Boundaries and Positive attitudes and behaviour. The panel rejected the Applicant’s assertion that he had learned from this and that it had changed him as a person. The panel noted that there was no evidence of any meaningful reflection by the Applicant in relation to the events involving Colleague C.

23. The panel concluded that there was a very high risk of repetition of similar misconduct. The panel took into account that the Applicant had repeated similar conduct with three different junior female colleagues, including repeating this conduct after findings by the Trust in relation to Colleagues A and B and the sanction imposed on him.

24. The panel found the Applicant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on the personal component.

25. In relation to the public component, the panel found that the Applicant posed a risk to members of the public, particularly junior female colleagues, and young female patients because of the likelihood that he would repeat his conduct of unwanted attention and sexual assault. The panel concluded that members of the profession and the public would expect the Regulator to act in these circumstances to protect the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold its standards of conduct. The panel found that the Applicant’s fitness to practise was also impaired on the public component.

26. In considering whether to impose a sanction, the panel found that the aggravating factors were:
     • multiple young vulnerable victims
     • behaviour over a protracted period of time;
     • continued inappropriate behaviour following disciplinary and behaviour increased in seriousness rather than stopped;
    • breach of trust both in relation to the behaviour towards a patient and in relation to colleagues;
    • no demonstration of genuine remorse compounded by lying under oath;
    • lack of real insight into the main issues regarding sexualised conduct towards women;
    • very high risk of repetition of similar misconduct;
    • an attitudinal problem regarding women.

27. The panel found the following mitigating circumstances:
    • the [Applicant’s] full engagement with the Regulator;
    • limited insight into some of the less serious particulars.

28. The panel concluded that the lesser sanctions of a Caution Order and Conditions of Practice Order were not appropriate as the former would not be sufficient in the circumstances, and because there were no workable and appropriate conditions of practice which would address the Applicant’s misconduct.

29. In relation to a Suspension Order, the panel decided that it had no confidence that the Applicant would not start his behaviour again, noting that the Applicant had done just that when the Trust’s written warning for his misconduct towards Colleagues A and B was finished. He had started his behaviour again. The panel also noted that the Applicant had not developed insight over the eighteen-month period during which he was subject to a Final Written Warning. The panel took the view that the Applicant had an attitudinal problem towards women which made it very difficult for there to be any meaningful remediation. The panel also referred to the very high risk of repetition which it concluded would indicate that a Suspension Order may not be appropriate.

30. In imposing a Striking Off Order, the panel recognised that this was a sanction of last resort. It considered that it was appropriate as the misconduct involved serious and deliberate acts, and a sexual assault. Those acts involved a breach of trust, both in relation to the sexually motivated acts and the conduct towards Patient A. The behaviour had persisted over a long period. The panel referred to the Applicant having lied under oath and to his lack of insight in relation to most of the particulars of the Allegation. The panel also referred to there being an attitudinal problem and a high risk of repetition. The panel concluded that a Striking Off Order would provide public protection for female colleague and patients. It also concluded that any lesser sanction would not be a sufficient deterrent or send out the clear message that the Applicant’s conduct was completely unacceptable.

Decision

31. The Panel heard evidence from the Applicant. It has also received and considered the documentation in a bundle prepared for the hearing which totals 131 pages. This includes:
        a) the decision of the panel at the final hearing in June 2017;
        b) the Applicant’s application for restoration dated 21 January 2023 and date stamped                as received by the HCPC on 30 January 2023;
       c) the Applicant’s documentation relating to 15 days of formal study;
       d) the Applicant’s documentation relating to 15 days of private study;
       e) the Applicant’s certified proof of identity documentation;
       f) a letter from the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”) dated 13 July 2018;
       g) the Applicant’s Reflective Statement sent to the Council on 6 November 2023;
       h) various testimonials from the Applicant’s employment as a security guard;
       i) various emails between the Applicant and the HCPC regarding his application for                    restoration, including one dated 19 October 2023 indicating that the Striking Off                    Order imposed in June 2017 did not take effect until 24 January 2018.

32. During the hearing the Panel sought further information from the HCPC and was told the following information:
      j) That the Applicant had appealed against the decision to the High Court and that his               appeal had been withdrawn by consent and the Consent Order had been dated                       stamped 24 October 2017;
      k) confirmation from the HCPC Registrations department that the effective date of the               Striking Off Order was 24 October 2017, and
      l) confirmation from the DBS that it would not provide the HCPC with any further                       information regarding the Applicant as he had been struck off the HCPC Register and               therefore the HCPC no longer had Legitimate interest status.

33. The Panel has also had in mind the submissions made by both parties and the matters set out in the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Restoration to the Register” (June 2022) and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice.

34. The Panel is aware that it should only grant the Applicant’s application for restoration to the Register if he has satisfied the Panel, on the balance of probabilities, that:
         (i) the Applicant’s application complies with Article 33 (2) (a) of the Health Professions               Order 2001, namely that five years have elapsed since the Striking Off Order came                 into force;
         (ii) that the Applicant meets the general requirements for registration; and
         (iii) that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a Physiotherapist,                           having regard to the particular circumstances that led to the striking off.

35. The Practice Note makes clear that in considering whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person, the Panel should have regard to whether the Applicant’s current fitness to practise is impaired, and to the following matters:
        • the matters which led to striking off and the reasons given by the original Panel for                 imposing that sanction;
        • whether the applicant accepts and has insight into those matters;
        • whether the applicant has resolved those matters, has willingness and ability to do so,             or whether they are capable of being resolved by the applicant;
       • what other remedial or rehabilitative steps the applicant has taken;
       • what steps the applicant has taken to keep his or her professional knowledge and skills            up to date.

Submissions:

The Applicant:

36. The Applicant indicated to the Panel that he had believed that he was only required to do 30 days of updating but that if the Panel wished him to do 60 days of updating, he would happily do that. The Applicant repeated what he had said in evidence that he was confident that he had developed insight into what had happened and that he would make sure that it did not happen again.

The HCPC:

37. Ms Welsh submitted that the application should fail on both grounds set out in Article 33 (5) of the Health Professions Act 2001 (“the 2001 Order”).

38. With regard to the first ground, Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant had not provided any evidence that he had completed the required 60 days updating. She submitted that the general requirement for anyone who has been off the Register for five or more years was 60 days updating. Ms Welsh referred to the Applicant’s mistaken belief that only 30 days of updating were required and submitted that the evidence he had provided did not establish even that. Ms Welsh submitted that the evidence of Formal Study from Plus by Physiopedia added up to about 11 days study. She submitted there was no evidence to show that the three courses taken by the Applicant in relation to Safeguarding, Professional Boundaries and Bullying and Harassment would have taken the Formal Study days to the 15 days, referred to in his application form. Ms Welsh also submitted that the evidence of Private Study which was set out on a 1-page document was extremely limited and was not backed up by evidence or records to show what the Applicant had studied, which books or journals he had read and what his reflections were on these. Ms Welsh submitted that it was unlikely the Applicant would have been able to obtain supervised practice in a healthcare setting due to being barred from working with vulnerable adults by the DBS.

39. Ms Welsh reminded the Panel that on his own admission, the Applicant had not completed 60 days of updating and submitted that his application for restoration should be refused on grounds that he does not meet the general requirements for registration.

40. In relation to whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register, Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public components. In relation to the personal component, Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant’s acceptance of the original panel’s findings was extremely limited. She referred to the seriousness of the misconduct and the repeated nature of it. Ms Welsh submitted that the Registrant had not remedied his misconduct and there was, therefore, a very high risk of it being repeated. Ms Welsh submitted that public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made, in the circumstances of this case.

41. In relation to the factors set out in the Practice Note on Restoration to the Register, Ms Welsh referred to the Applicant’s evidence where he had had difficulty in describing his misconduct, often saying “whatever happened”. She submitted that the Applicant blamed his colleagues, saying that they had misunderstood him and should have asked him to explain what he meant. He still claimed that touching Colleague A had been an accident and that he had apologised to her, despite the facts found by the original panel. Ms Welsh said that the Applicant had eventually accepted the original panel’s decision. In relation to Colleague B, Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant maintained that she had misunderstood the capability process and he had said that he had no intentions to harm Colleague B and that it was his poor judgment due to pressures in his professional and private life. Ms Welsh referred to the Applicant’s reflective piece provided on 6 November 2023, and submitted that in this he had concentrated on the impact of his misconduct on himself. He had also indicated that he did not accept that his conduct was sexually motivated and repeated that he should have spoken to his colleagues to explain what he had meant by his comments and blamed them for misunderstanding him. Ms Welsh submitted that in his reflective piece, the Applicant was avoiding responsibility and shifting the blame for his misconduct onto others. He had also maintained his previous reasons for his dishonesty when he had lied under oath to the original panel.

42. Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant’s limited acceptance of his misconduct and his continued denial that some of it was sexually motivated, indicated that he had no genuine or meaningful insight. She referred to the Applicant’s limited acknowledgement of the impact of his misconduct on his colleagues, and on his employer. Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant had not resolved his misconduct and appeared to be incapable of doing so due to his limited acceptance of, and insight into that misconduct. Ms Welsh referred to the nature of the Formal Study undertaken by the Applicant and submitted that this had not been targeted to addressing the misconduct but had focused on clinical courses instead.

43. Ms Welsh also referred to the four testimonials provided by the Applicant and submitted that these were of very limited assistance to the Panel as they did not refer to the Applicant’s interactions with women in a work context and nor had the Applicant informed the people providing the testimonials that he would be using them for these proceedings. Ms Welsh submitted that the Applicant had not provided any evidence of any measures he had put in place to ensure that were he to find himself in a similar situation, he would not repeat his misconduct.

44. Ms Welsh referred to the lack of information from the Applicant about the effect the DBS bar would have on his practice as a Physiotherapist. She said there was no information as to his current status other than the Applicant’s evidence that he had unsuccessfully challenged the DBS decision to bar him and that he was therefore barred for 10 years. Ms Welsh also reminded the Panel that the Applicant had said in evidence that he had not disclosed that he was barred by the DBS to any of his employers or to SIA Licensing when training to be a security guard, as he had not wanted to be seen in a bad light.

45. Ms Welsh submitted that the application for restoration should fail on the second ground as the Applicant had not demonstrated that he was a fit and proper person to practise as a Physiotherapist, having regard to the particular circumstances that had led to his being struck off the Register.

Decision:

46. The Panel first satisfied itself that the application for restoration was made after five years had elapsed since the Striking Off Order was imposed on the Applicant. The Panel knows that the Applicant appealed the decision of the original panel to the High Court, and that on 24 October 2017, by consent, he abandoned his appeal. The Panel is satisfied that the effective date for the Striking Off Order is the 24 October 2017. The Panel has had in mind Article 33 (2)(a) of the 2001 Order which states in relation to restoration applications that:
“no such application may be made
(a) before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the order under article 29….took effect”.

47. The Panel has seen the Applicant’s application for restoration form and supporting documentation. The Applicant told the Panel that he had completed, signed, and dated his application on 21 January 2023; however, he had not submitted it to the HCPC on that date but on about 27 January 2023.

48. In these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant has complied with Article 33 (2) (a) and submitted his application for restoration after five years had elapsed since the Striking Off Order came into effect.

49. The Panel then considered whether the Applicant meets the general requirements for registration. The Panel notes that in his application form the Applicant states to have completed a period of updating totalling 30 days, comprising 15 days of Formal Study and 15 days of Private Study. In his evidence to the Panel, the Applicant stated that he believed a period of only 30 days updating was required by the HCPC for readmission to the Register where there has been between two- and five-years absence from the Register. The HCPC submitted that the relevant updating period was 60 days for anyone who had been struck off the Register. The Panel has accepted legal advice that the updating period for someone returning to the Register after a period of absence between two years and up to five years is 30 days, but for a period of absence of five years or more, it is 60 days.

50. The Panel notes that the Applicant does not claim to have completed 60 days of updating. It also notes that although in his application form the Applicant claims to have competed 30 days of updating, the 15 days he attributes to Formal Study is not backed up by the certificates he has produced from Plus by Physiopedia, the online training company which he used for most of his Formal Study. The Panel considers that this Formal Study could account for at best around 11 days of updating and even though the Applicant completed online courses in Safeguarding, Professional Boundaries and Bullying and Harassment, these are unlikely to have made up the total of days of Formal Study to the 15 days claimed.

51. The Panel considers that as the main focus of the Formal Study was directed towards clinical matters, the Applicant had not taken the opportunity, given the nature of the case, to address his behavioural issues by, for example, taking Formal Study courses in counselling sessions to address how he could avoid repeating his behaviour towards female colleagues in the future, and how to avoid the pressures he claimed he was under at the relevant time.

52. The Panel is concerned that in his approach to providing evidence of updating, the Applicant has demonstrated an attitude that he was prepared to do what he had mistakenly understood to be the bare minimum and it was sceptical based on the documents which he had provided that he had done even that. The Panel considered that the Applicant has given the impression that his studying has been wholly superficial and that he has not learned from it. He was able to recite what he had done but had not reflected on how he had learned from it. The Panel considers that the Applicant needs to understand and own the findings of the original Panel, and that what he should have done is not to concentrate on clinical matters but on how to understand and address his attitudinal issues regarding women, how he communicates and on workplace relationships.

53. The Panel is therefore not satisfied that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proving that he has completed the general requirements for registration as he has not completed the required period of 60 days updating.

54. Although the Applicant’s application for restoration fails at this point, the Panel nevertheless decided that it might be useful to the Applicant for it to set out its position on the second aspect of any restoration application, namely whether the Applicant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a physiotherapist, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to the Striking Off Order.

55. In relation to current fitness to practise, the Panel considered the personal component and in particular whether the Applicant has remedied his misconduct. The Panel considers that the Applicant’s conduct is capable of being remedied, although it accepts that it is more difficult but not impossible to demonstrate that sexually motivated conduct has been remedied. However, the Panel has concluded that the Applicant is very far from having remedied his misconduct. The Panel considers that this is because he has not accepted his misconduct, and because he has no proper insight in to it. The Panel takes the view that before any meaningful steps can be made to remedy the serious misconduct in this case, the Applicant will need to understand and accept what he has done.

56. In his evidence to the Panel, the Applicant was still trying to blame his three colleagues, rather than accepting what he had done. The Panel notes that it is now some 8 years since the Applicant was in practice as a Physiotherapist and even longer since the conduct which led to the Striking Off Order took place. During that time, the Applicant was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing and then reinstated following an appeal and given an 18-month Final Written Warning. At the end of the 18 months, the Applicant repeated and escalated his inappropriate behaviour and committed a sexual assault. He was referred to the HCPC and these proceedings were commenced, and following the final hearing, he was barred from working with vulnerable adults by the DBS having failed to successfully challenge its decision to bar him. Despite all of this, the Applicant is still saying to this Panel that his three female colleagues did not understand what he was saying to them, and they should have asked him to explain. He had difficult in accepting that he had touched his colleagues and difficulty in referring to the original panel’s findings in any detail. The Panel notes that the Applicant tended to focus on the impact of the misconduct on himself and found it difficult to articulate how it had impacted on his colleagues, his employer or on his profession. Although he was found to have lied on oath, the Applicant maintains he is an honest person. He has offered no genuine or meaningful apology or accepted any responsibility for what he did. He claims to be a different person now but could not say when this had happened. The Panel is of the view due to the Applicant’s continued lack of acceptance of his misconduct, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to move forward and to remedy it.

57. In these circumstances, the Panel has no difficulty in concluding that there is a high risk that the Applicant will repeat his misconduct and so members of the public, particularly young female colleagues or service users are at risk of harm from him. The Panel therefore finds that the Applicant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

58. In relation to the public component, the Panel has concluded that in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as Regulator, and to uphold proper standards of conduct in the Physiotherapy profession, it must make a finding of impairment in this case. The Panel considers that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned, and even shattered, if no finding of impairment was made in an application for restoration to the Register where the Applicant (i) had been found to have behaved, over a long period of time, inappropriately and in a sexually motivated way towards junior female colleagues, and also to have physically assaulted a patient and inappropriately hugged the patient’s wife, and (ii) where, despite at least 8 years having elapsed, he still did not accept his misconduct, had no insight or genuine remorse, and had taken no steps to remedy the misconduct. The Panel therefore finds that the Applicant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

59. The Panel then considered the factors set out in the Practice Note on Restoration to the Register. It has considered the matters which led to the Striking Off Order. The original panel imposed a Striking Off Order for “serious and deliberate acts, and a sexual assault. Those acts were a breach of trust, both in relation to the sexually motivated acts and the conduct towards Patient A. The behaviour persisted over a long period. The Panel considered that the Registrant lied under oath and has not demonstrated insight in relation to most of the particulars. There is an attitudinal problem and a high risk of repetition. A Striking Off Order would provide public protection, both for female colleagues and patients”.

60. In relation to the wider public interest, the original panel decided that “anything less than a striking off order would not be a sufficient deterrent. It would not send the clear message which is needed that the Registrant’s behaviour is completely unacceptable”. That panel considered that a Suspension Order would undermine public confidence in the profession.

61. The Panel has considered whether the Applicant accepts and has insight into the matters which led to the Striking Off Order. The Panel has already considered these matters when considering the Applicant’s fitness to practise under the personal component. The Applicant does not appear to accept that his actions or words were anything more than either accidental or he could not recall what had happened. The Applicant told the Panel that he had not harmed anyone and then tried to suggest that he had said that he had not intended to harm anyone. The Panel is concerned that the Registrant was dishonest in his evidence in this hearing.

62. The Panel considers that having attended the courses on safeguarding, professional boundaries, bullying and harassment, the Applicant should have been able to see that his conduct towards Colleagues A, B and C was in clear breach of acceptable standards in the workplace. The Panel finds it very concerning that the Applicant still seems to be in denial as to his misconduct and has not gained any insight into his misconduct over the time since these matters first came to light.

63. The Panel has considered whether the Applicant has resolved the matters that led to the Striking Off Order, whether he has the willingness to do so, or whether they are capable of being resolved by him. The Panel has already concluded that the Applicant has not resolved his misconduct. It has reached the conclusion that the Applicant is either unwilling at this time to resolve those matters or that he is incapable of doing so. The Panel concurs with the original panel view that the Applicant has an attitudinal problem towards women.

64. The Panel takes the view that the Applicant will only be able to begin to resolve the matters when he has reached a stage of full acceptance and understanding of his misconduct, and has gained full insight into it. The Panel considers that the Applicant could have completed 60 days updating and that if he was in any doubt about what was required, he could have sought information from the HCPC as to what was required of him. He did not do this. The Panel considers that over 8 years is a long time to reflect on his misconduct and to take meaningful steps to persuade the Panel that he has remedied it. It is concerned that there is an absence of proper reflection and any meaningful steps towards remediation. The Panel has concluded that this is indicative of how the Applicant is unwilling or incapable of resolving the matters.

65. The Panel also notes that the Applicant could have demonstrated that he had changed by providing examples in his private life. He provided four testimonials which the Panel has concluded are of very limited value. The Applicant was told by the original panel that the testimonials he produced for the final hearing were similarly of limited value because the authors were not told of the circumstances of the allegation he faced. Despite that explanation about testimonials, the Applicant has effectively done the same thing again. He did not tell the four people who wrote them either that they were to be used in this application or anything about the allegation that led to his being struck off the Register.

66. The Panel has considered the other steps taken by the Applicant. The Panel has already set out its view of the inadequacy and insufficiency of the remedial steps taken by the Applicant in relation to the type of updating study he has undertaken and his lack of reflection on it.

67. The Panel has considered the steps taken by the Applicant to keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date. The Panel considers that the Applicant has taken inadequate steps for someone who has been out of practise for over 8 years. The Panel is aware that the Applicant would have been unable to have any practical supervised sessions due to being barred by the DBS. However, the updating undertaken by the Applicant falls far short not only in terms of quantity but also in quality.

68. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that the Applicant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he is a fit and proper person to practise as a Physiotherapist, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to striking off.

ORDER:

The Panel refuses the application for restoration to the Register.

Right to Apply to the Court
Under Article 33 (12) of the Health Professions Order 2001, you may apply to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision.

Under Articles 33 (13) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days beginning with the date on which notice of this decision rejecting the application is served on you.

History of Hearings for Mr Sethuraman Pala Srinivasan