By Press Trust of India: A 37-year-old Indian-origin schoolteacher from the northwest of England has been prohibited from instructing for a minimal two-year interval after educated conduct panel found that she did not disclose a fraud conviction to her employer.
Dipti Patel was a teacher at Manchester Academy and was accused of “unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute” for failing to disclose a September 2020 conviction at St Albans Crown Court.
The Professional Conduct Panel listening to, held ultimate month, well-known that Patel was convicted of the offence of “dishonestly make false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk”.
ALSO READ | Indian-origin businessman in UK convicted of Covid mortgage fraud
“The panel finds that the conduct of Mrs Patel fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings are particularly serious as they include a finding of dishonesty, which the panel describe as ‘inherently serious’,” the panel well-known in a name on behalf of the Department for Education (DfE) ultimate week.
“I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mrs Dipti Patel is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 23 May 2025, two years from the date of this order at the earliest,” it concludes.
The panel was completely satisfied that Patel nonetheless had “much to offer the teaching profession” and {{that a}} prohibition order with a analysis interval might lead to her making use of to set the order aside on the end of the analysis interval.
ALSO READ | Indian-origin man in UK jailed for drug smuggling, money laundering
“Accordingly, the panel recommended to the Secretary of State (Gillian Keegan) that a prohibition order should be imposed, with Mrs Patel to be able to make an application to review the order after a period of two years,” the selection well-known.
Patel had admitted the allegation in opposition to her and the panel said it was completely satisfied that her admission was “unequivocal and consistent” with the encircling proof and subsequently found the allegation proved. She has the exact of attraction in opposition to the panel’s selection throughout the High Court in England.
