A Moray teacher who made advances on colleagues has been allowed to keep his job.
Nabil Ramzy has been reprimanded for comments he made to two women while employed in Fife.
Moray Council backed their employee, who teaches English as an additional language, at a disciplinary hearing citing his “excellent” work and the “huge difference” he had made since moving to the region.
And Mr Ramzy returned to his job as normal at the Beechbrae Education Centre in Elgin following the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) hearing that could have seen him struck off.
The teacher approached one woman when she was alone in a room, shut the door behind him and begged her for “just one kiss” – after which he would leave her alone.
In separate incidents Mr Ramzy stroked her hair, said he was jealous of the woman’s partner and gave her a hug in a cupboard.
To avoid his advances the woman began working in a shared area with other staff to reduce the chance of being left alone with him.
The incidents took place between November 2008 and January 2010 when Mr Ramzy was employed by Fife Council, the November 30 hearing was told.
The teacher also made a different female colleague “awkward and uncomfortable” at St Andrew’s High School in Kirkcaldy in April 2012 by touching her hand and neck.
A Moray Council spokesman said: “Nabil Ramzy has worked as principal teacher of English as an additional language for the past year and we have no concerns regarding his professionalism, abilities and conduct.
“He returned to work as usual following the GTCS hearing.”
The GTCS panel concluded that Mr Ramzy’s conduct in the years since the advances had shown that a reprimand would reflect the seriousness of the actions while reflecting they were at the “lower end” of inappropriate conduct.
Their report states: “During that time, the respondent has been employed by Moray Council and there was positive evidence from his colleagues and managers regarding his conduct towards colleagues and others.
“Accordingly, the panel was satisfied there had been no repetition of the conduct and there was evidence attesting to the respondent’s good character.
“In light of the significant period of time passed and the extent of positive information about the respondent, the panel considered a more severe sanction would be disproportionate in the circumstances.”
