Mr Anshu Taneja

Introduction

Anshu Taneja taught mathematics at Beal High School in Ilford from 1 September 2016, first as a trainee teacher and, from September 2017, as a qualified teacher, and he was also a Year 13 form tutor. In January and February 2020, the school said, he failed to maintain professional boundaries with a pupil, and after a police interview that led to no charges the matter went to the Teaching Regulation Agency. Taneja attended the four-day hearing at Cheylesmore House in Coventry in November 2023, represented by counsel, and denied the allegations. The panel found the core of the case proved, including that his conduct was sexually motivated, and on 20 November 2023 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely with no review and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Taneja joined Beal High School as a trainee teacher of mathematics on 1 September 2016 and qualified into the post a year later. The allegations centred on Pupil A. The incidents relied on occurred on 30 and 31 January 2020, after days in which Pupil A said Taneja had spoken to her in circumstances she found unusual. Pupil A said Taneja first approached her in the school canteen on 24 January 2020, asking who her maths teacher was and what her predicted grade was, and that on other occasions he gave her an unwanted orange juice and twice made jokes about her shoelaces while she sat with friends. She found the attention unusual and mentioned it to another teacher. On 30 January Taneja beckoned her away from her friends into the Art foyer and asked whether he made her feel uncomfortable and whether she would keep any conversation private; the next day, while Pupil C was in his room for arranged maths help, he looked up pupils’ details on the school’s SIMS management system, commented on where Pupil A lived and on her school photos, then beckoned her away again for a second one-to-one conversation. Pupil A made notes on her phone immediately afterwards and reported the matter the same day. Taneja was interviewed under caution by police on 20 February 2020; no criminal charges followed, and after a school disciplinary investigation the case was referred to the TRA.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Mixed admissions, contested findings. Taneja admitted only some facts: obtaining Pupil A’s personal number, attempting to call her on it, asking whether she was free out of school hours, and one of the four alleged comments. He denied the rest, denied unacceptable professional conduct, and contested the case at a hearing in person. The findings below are the panel’s, proved on the balance of probabilities after it heard Pupil A and other witnesses and viewed CCTV.

The panel found proved that Taneja obtained Pupil A’s personal mobile number — he conceded in evidence he knew it was hers — and attempted to call it from his car at about 17:30 on 31 January 2020, the call not connecting. It found he asked her whether she was free out of school hours, preferring her contemporaneous written account to his tuition explanation: she recalled him asking “Are you free on Saturday around 3 or 4 or the half term”, and the panel noted he could not explain why he had raised tuition with Pupil A to the exclusion of Pupil C, who had actually expressed interest. It found three of the four alleged comments proved, accepting Pupil A’s account that he said “You’re a very attractive girl”, “Even in your school uniform, I still find you attractive” and “I’m never going to speak to you alone am I?”; the phrase “You look nice in your uniform” was not proved because it did not appear in her contemporaneous statement.

The panel also found the one-to-one meetings proved — CCTV showed a brief encounter on 30 January that Taneja had not recalled — and most of the concealment particulars. Pupil A’s account, corroborated by CCTV, was that he said “I can’t do anything risky here, are these cameras?” and asked her to move away from a camera; that he said “You’re a kid, this could end my career. I don’t want to end up in a newspaper and shit”; that he would only call her on a withheld number, memorising rather than saving her number; and that he stepped back behind a wall to avoid being seen when a colleague came into view. The panel called his explanation — that he moved because he was not wearing school uniform — “wholly implausible”. Two concealment particulars were not proved. It also found allegation 2 proved: his casual use of SIMS in front of pupils, which he accepted he regretted, exposing confidential information.

On sexual motivation, the panel concluded his conduct in allegation 1 was in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Pupil A, citing his isolation of her from her friends, the attraction comments, his obtaining her number, his attempt to arrange a meeting out of school, and his concealment. A striking postscript: after Pupil A gave evidence on the first day of the hearing, Taneja sent her a Facebook friend request at 19:18 on 13 November 2023, which she found distressing and intimidating; he said it was inadvertent while checking her page for references to the case. The panel found allegation 3 proved in relation to allegation 1, though not in relation to allegation 2.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found the proven conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards on public trust, proper boundaries and safeguarding, and found the offence of abuse of position of trust relevant. It concluded the conduct was calculated and motivated, noted his continued denial of most allegations and his little or no insight, and observed that despite safeguarding training certificates he failed to demonstrate the required understanding of safeguarding when questioned. Combined with the Facebook friend request, the panel saw an ongoing risk of repetition and recommended an indefinite prohibition with no review period. It acknowledged his previously good history and character references, including one from tennis coaching, but noted none addressed his teaching in a school.

Current Status

Decision maker David Oatley accepted the recommendation on 20 November 2023. Taneja is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because of the seriousness of the findings he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, so the ban has no review route. He has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of notice of the order. The decision maker expressly put the not-proved matters — the “You look nice in your uniform” comment, one concealment particular, and sexual motivation on allegation 2 — entirely from his mind.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Taneja’s four-year career at Beal High School had already ended before the hearing — the decision records his employment as running to 17 July 2020 — and the prohibition order closes teaching in England to him permanently. His in-person defence did not soften the outcome: the decision maker placed considerable weight on his lack of insight, his abuse of a position of trust in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with a pupil, and his attempts at concealment, concluding that a published decision alone could not satisfy public confidence in the profession.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Anshu Taneja” — source