Melbin Thankachan
Profession: Radiographer
Registration Number: RA085328
Hearing Type: Final Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 20/03/2026
End: 17:00 20/03/2026
Location:
Via Microsoft Teams
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Voluntary Removal agreed
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Radiographer (RA085328):
1. Between 04 July 2022 and 18 December 2022, whilst working at Alder Hey NHS Foundation Trust, you were unable to work autonomously and/or required supervision from another radiographer at all times.
2. You did not demonstrate the level of competence expected of a newly qualified radiographer during clinical assessments and/or supervised shifts on the dates listed in Schedule A.
3. Whilst working at Alder Hey NHS Foundation Trust, you were unable to communicate effectively as your spoken English and/or understanding of the English language was poor, in that:
a. On 02 and 09 September 2022, during meetings with Colleague A, you spoke too quickly and/or had to type what you wanted to say on your phone; and/or
b. On 13 October 2022, Patient M asked you to repeat yourself on multiple occasions before he could understand you; and/or
c. On 28 October 2022, you did not effectively communicate Patient O's required position for a lateral elbow and forearm x-ray; and/or
d. On 01 November 2022, you were unable to articulate that Patient G was required to be sent to the orthopaedic clinic following their x-ray examination.
e. On 13 December 2022, you did not know how to ask Patient K's mother how to remove their baby grow.
4. On 01 September 2022, in relation to Patient P, you: did not consult with the patient and/or their parents before pulling down their shorts.
5. In or around October 2022, in relation to Patient Q, you: did not seek consent from the patient before tying her gown.
6. Between 01 September 2022 and 18 December 2022, you failed to meet all of the objectives of the development plan dated 01 September 2022.
7. On 12 August 2023, you did not communicate professionally with Colleague A in that you sent her an email which was threatening in nature.
8. The matters set out in Particulars 1-7 above constitute lack of competence and/or misconduct.
9. By reason of your lack of competence and/or misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.
Schedule A:
1. 18 August 2022; and/or
2. 01 September 2022; and/or
3. 11 October 2022; and/or
4. 13 October 2022; and/or
5. 19 October 2022; and/or
6. 28 October 2022; and/or
7. 01 November 2022; and/or
8. 08 December 2022; and/or
9. 09 December 2022; and/or
10. 13 December 2022; and/or
11. 14 December 2022.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service of Notice
1. The Panel had information before it that the Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address by an email dated 2 February 2026.
2. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Service of Documents” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that good service had been effected in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules 2003.
Proceeding in Absence
3. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Mr Doyle submitted that the Registrant had deliberately absented himself from the hearing. There was no request from him for an adjournment, nor any indication that he would attend if an adjournment was ordered. Any potential unfairness to him in proceeding was outweighed by the public interest in expeditiously dealing with this case. In any event, the Registrant agreed with the application to be removed from the register by way of a voluntary removal.
4. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
5. The Panel decided that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing, having been served with Notice, and the sending of the Notice having been confirmed as delivered by email. The Notice of hearing specifically identified today’s hearing as a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) hearing. Further, the Panel took into account a series of emails between the Registrant and the HCPTS in March 2026, culminating in the Registrant’s email of 13 March 2026 in which he stated, when asked if he would be attending today:
“i will not attend it. but i need a voluntary removal (sic)”.
6. The Panel took the view that his statement was clear and unambiguous. The Panel decided that the Registrant was aware of the purpose of today’s hearing, as set out in the Notice, and as confirmed in his email set out above. The Panel decided that he had voluntarily waived his right to attend today’s hearing and that there would be no purpose in adjourning it.
7. The Panel was of the view that in light of the Registrant’s position, there was little if any prejudice to the Registrant in proceeding today to hear the application for voluntary removal. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interests that the agreement should be considered expeditiously. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, deeming this to be fair, in the interests of justice, and in the public interest.
Background
8. The Registrant is an HCPC registered Radiographer and was previously employed by Alder Hey NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust) between 19 July and 31 December 2022.
9. On 28 March 2023, the HCPC received a referral from the Trust in relation to the Registrant’s fitness to practise. It was alleged that within two weeks of the Registrant commencing employment, multiple Radiographers raised concerns regarding the Registrant’s communication skills and clinical ability.
10. On 31 December 2022, following the Registrant being placed on an informal capability and performance plan, he resigned from his position at the Trust. The referrer stated that if the Registrant had not resigned, he would have been progressed to the first stage of the capability and performance procedure, due to him failing to meet the objectives of the informal capability and performance plan.
11. On 9 August 2023, an 18-month Interim Suspension Order was imposed on the grounds that it was necessary for public protection and was otherwise in the public interest. This was extended by the High Court on 7 February 2025 and 6 February 2026 and currently expires on 9 February 2027.
12. On 11 April 2025, the Registrant confirmed he was “interested for voluntary Removal of my registration”. It was explained that this could not be pursued unless a case to answer was found.
13. On 17 June 2025, an Investigating Committee Panel considered the matter and determined there was a case to answer. It referred the allegation set out at the beginning of this decision to the Conduct and Competence Committee.
14. In light of his earlier email, on 30 June 2025 Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors for the HCPC, raised whether the Registrant wished to pursue consensual disposal by way of a voluntary removal agreement. They provided information on the process, the HCPTS Practice Note on “Disposal of Cases by Consent” and a Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma (pro-forma).
15. On 4 July 2025, the Registrant confirmed he wanted to be removed from the Register and asked whether his name could be removed that day. In response, the process was explained to the Registrant.
16. On 11 July 2025, the Registrant confirmed he was “ready for voluntary removal,” but returned an incomplete pro-forma. He did not confirm whether he admitted the substance of the allegation and did not confirm whether he admitted that his fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of misconduct and lack of competence. Blake Morgan LLP explained this omission to the Registrant, explaining that the matter could not be considered for consensual disposal until a completed pro forma had been provided. The Registrant returned a completed pro-forma, dated 12 January 2026, admitting all those matters.
Submissions
17. The Panel had before it the following documents:
i. unredacted service bundle;
ii. redacted service bundle;
iii. HCPC bundle;
iv. HCPC skeleton argument.
18. Mr Doyle relied on his skeleton argument and submitted that voluntary removal from the Register was an appropriate disposal of this case and would not compromise public protection or the wider public interest. Mr Doyle referred to the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma form (“Pro-Forma”) signed by the Registrant on 12 January 2026 which indicated that he admitted the substance of the allegation, including misconduct and lack of competence, and accepted that he was impaired. Mr Doyle also referred to the VRA signed by both parties dated 13 February 2026.
Decision on Application
19. The Panel reminded itself of the guidance offered in the HCPC Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent” dated January 2026. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
20. The Panel took into account all of the evidence before it, including the Registrant’s emails dated 9 and 13 March 2026. The Panel also took into account all the written information provided to the Registrant by Blake Morgan LLP in their communications with the Registrant, as well as the statements and declarations made by the Registrant when he signed the pro forma and the VRA. While it is clear that the Registrant did not make admissions initially in his original pro forma, he did so in the final pro forma dated 12 January 2026. Taking into account all the information, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has had sufficient information about the VRA process, and has been clear about his wish to be removed from the Register, as well as his acceptance of the substance of the allegation, misconduct and lack of competence, and that his fitness to practise is impaired, as reflected in the documents signed by him. The Panel was also satisfied, having taken account of the documentation, that the Registrant understood the effect of the proposed order.
21. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has had it explained to him that the ultimate decision as to whether or not to approve the VRA lies with the Panel.
22. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be protected by the removal of the Registrant from the Register, as it would have the same effect as if he had been struck off the Register.
23. The Panel examined the allegations and considered that on the face of it, they were serious. They were wide-ranging, and suggested a sustained series of failures, including alleged failures in basic clinical decision-making but also different concerns regarding communication with colleagues and patients, including children. However, it was clear to the Panel that this was not a case in which the public interest required an examination of the allegations at a final hearing, for evidence to be heard and decisions to be made by a full substantive hearing panel. These have been fully admitted and will remain on the Registrant’s record should he, in the future apply for re-admission to the register. The Panel noted that full remediation would require to be shown before being able to gain registration.
24. The Panel was satisfied that the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards would not be undermined if this matter was disposed of by consent. The public interest would not be adversely affected by the VRA. Rather, in the Panel’s view, the public interest would be served by the expeditious resolution provided by the VRA, bearing in mind that the outcome would be similar to a striking off order.
25. In all the circumstances, the Panel was therefore satisfied that the HCPC has put forward an objectively justified explanation for why the matter is suitable for disposal by a VRA.
26. The Panel therefore decided to approve the VRA.
27. The Panel therefore agreed that the substantive proceedings should be withdrawn.
28. In addition, as a result of the Panel’s decision, the Panel decided to revoke the current Interim Suspension Order, as this will be superseded by the VRA. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order was not necessary to protect the public, was not in the public interest, or in the Registrant’s interest, to continue it.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Melbin Thankachan from the Register with immediate effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Melbin Thankachan
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20/03/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Voluntary Removal agreed |
| 14/01/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 29/09/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 12/05/2025 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 19/12/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 30/09/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 26/06/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 22/03/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 08/08/2023 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Application | Interim Suspension |
| 29/06/2023 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Application | Adjourned |