'Over-familiar' Milton Keynes teacher banned after failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with pupils

A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) heard the case of Mr Suhayr Dhorat, who had been employed at the school from September 2021.

In a decision published in March 2026, the panel concluded that Mr Dhorat was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and behaviour likely to bring the profession into disrepute. The Secretary of State’s representative accepted the panel’s findings and imposed a prohibition order, preventing him from teaching indefinitely.

The ruling means Mr Dhorat cannot work in any school, sixth form college, or relevant youth setting in England. He can apply for the ban to be reviewed after four years, from March 2030.

Boundary breaches and messaging

The panel found that in July 2022 Mr Dhorat gave his personal mobile number to a pupil, which was later shared more widely among students. He also sent and received messages with pupils via WhatsApp and social media platforms, some of which were described as over-familiar and inappropriate.

Evidence showed he responded to pupils late at night, used a nickname by which he was known in school, and engaged in informal exchanges outside official school channels. In one instance, he sent a video of himself vaping to a pupil after he had been suspended.

The panel accepted that Mr Dhorat initially shared his number out of concern for a pupil’s wellbeing, but said this did not justify breaching clear safeguarding policies that prohibit personal contact with students.

It also found he gave the same pupil a card and a personalised gift, which it said singled the student out and crossed professional boundaries.

Attempts to conceal actions

A key element of the case involved findings of dishonesty.

The panel determined that Mr Dhorat asked pupils to “keep quiet” about having his phone number and, in some cases, to deny that he had replied to their messages if questioned by the school.

He also continued contacting pupils after being explicitly instructed to stop and after being suspended.

The panel said this behaviour amounted to “a course of dishonest conduct” aimed at covering up wrongdoing. It concluded that he lacked integrity and had encouraged pupils to mislead staff.

Safeguarding failures

Mr Dhorat was also found to have failed to report safeguarding concerns. He did not inform senior staff that his number had been shared among pupils or that he had received messages and calls from them.

The panel said this breached statutory guidance, including “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, and showed a disregard for established procedures designed to protect pupils.

It added that teachers are expected to act as role models and maintain clear professional boundaries at all times.

Panel findings and mitigation

The panel noted that Mr Dhorat was an early career teacher and had no previous disciplinary record. It also recognised that he had shown some remorse and had cooperated with the investigation, making admissions to most of the allegations.

In written evidence, Mr Dhorat apologised for his actions and said he had “learned from my mistakes”. He told the panel the case had had a significant impact on his personal and professional life.

However, the panel found there was limited evidence that he had developed sufficient understanding of safeguarding responsibilities since the incident, raising concerns about the risk of repetition.

Decision to ban

In deciding on the sanction, the panel said there was a strong public interest in protecting pupils, maintaining confidence in the teaching profession, and upholding standards.

It concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate given the seriousness of the misconduct, particularly the elements of dishonesty and the breach of trust.

The decision was endorsed on behalf of the Secretary of State, who said a ban was necessary to prevent future risk and maintain public confidence.

The four-year review period reflects the seriousness of the case, particularly the sustained nature of the dishonest conduct.

Mr Dhorat has the right to appeal the decision to the High Court within 28 days.