A Leicestershire Police officer called a superior a “Nazi” and made a sexualised comment to a female colleague, a misconduct hearing found. Kam Pardeshi’s comments were branded “wholly inappropriate” by a panel overseeing the case.
The first incident happened after Pc Pardeshi had been pulled up by his superior officer several times for not adhering to the force’s dress code around shirts and ties. In response, Pc Pardeshi told the senior officer that he was wearing a jumper “to be a ****”. Pc Pardeshi went on to say he did not know why the superior officer was “being a Nazi” about the issue.
The superior told the hearing that he considered Pc Pardeshi’s refusal to comply with expected standards as a “direct challenge to him”, and Pc Pardeshi’s language to be “very alarming”. The senior officer added that he was “deeply offended” when Pc Pardeshi called him a “Nazi”, saying the term was “deeply and grossly offensive”. He also questioned how Pc Pardeshi would behave with members of the public if the Pc felt it was acceptable to speak to a senior officer in such a manner.
READ MORE: Acting head teacher turned up drunk to primary school
In the second matter considered by the panel, Pc Pardeshi was speaking to a female colleague in front of the force’s tuck shop when he asked her how much it would cost for her to “deep throat” a long, thin sweet. When the female officer, with whom he was said to be friendly, responded with shock, he asked her if the comment went “too far”.
Despite the woman confirming she felt that Pc Pardeshi had gone too far, he repeated the comment to her “a short time later”. The woman told the misconduct panel she was “completely shocked and disgusted” by his words.
While Pc Pardeshi accepted he had made the comments around the dress code, he denied the sexual innuendo. However, the panel said they felt the female’s account was more likely to be true as she would have needed to be mistaken on more than one occasion because the comments were repeated, and because there was no indication of ill-will between the two that might have caused her to make it up.
The panel went on to rule Pc Pardeshi’s actions “serious enough to justify disciplinary action”. It added they were “deliberate and unwarranted utterances” which were “entirely unsolicited” and “unbecoming of any professional in a workplace setting”. Pc Pardeshi was “entirely blameworthy for them”, the hearing report added.
The sexualised remarks were not intended to be “predatory”, the panel continued. However, they were “sexist”, “made at the expense of a female colleague” and “always likely to diminish and embarrass” her.
However, the panel did allow some mitigation for Pc Pardeshi. Members were “satisfied” the comments were borne of a “skewed and misjudged sense of humour”, as well as the “frustrations” he had over the force’s dress code.
Pc Pardeshi had described the “Nazi” comment as a “moment of madness”, and the panel accepted that. It further extended that “moment” to the sexual innuendo, saying the two incidents happened in the space of about a week. This was “set against the background” of an “otherwise flawless” two-decade career, the panel’s report added.
Colleagues also provided testimonials in his favour, with one saying he was “one of the most caring and generous individuals” they had ever met, and had always shown them “nothing but the utmost respect”. Another said they believed Pc Pardeshi would be “mortified” if he knew he had upset anyone.
The panel labelled his behaviour “out-of-character”, adding that it came during a period at work in which Pc Pardeshi had “evidently found profoundly challenging”. No details were given about why it might have been challenging.
Ultimately, the panel ruled that the number of comments and their nature were too serious to merit just a written warning. As such, it determined a final written warning would be appropriate. The warning will last for two years.
Head of professional standards Detective Superintendent Ali Tompkins said: “The panel determined that Pc Pardeshi’s behaviour was misconduct, showing that this language isn’t acceptable in force. We take all allegations of this nature seriously and will take appropriate action.”