Police Constable Receives Final Written Warning for Misconduct
A police constable has been issued a final written warning after a gross misconduct hearing found he had breached standards of professional behaviour.
PC Kam Pardeshi faced allegations of breaching standards of authority, respect, and courtesy, as well as discreditable conduct. An allegation of breaching equality and diversity standards was not proven
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020
(AS AMENDED BY THE POLICE (CONDUCT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS
2024)
POLICE CONSTABLE 1825 KAMALPREET PARDESHI
Panel Findings and Outcome
Police Misconduct Hearing
3-5 December 2024
Outcome:
On the basis of the facts proved, the panel determined that PC Pardeshi breached two
standards of professional behaviour (‘Authority Respect and Courtesy’ and ‘Discreditable
Conduct’) and his behaviour amounted to misconduct.
Disciplinary action: Final Written Warning (two years duration).
Panel:
Paul Dawkins, Assistant Chief Officer
Kam Sandhu, Independent Panel Member
Hayley Howlett, Independent Panel Member
Legally Qualified Person
Neil Dalton, Legally Qualified Chair
Attendance of Press/ public
In accordance with Regulation 39 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’),
the hearing was held in public, albeit health issues were considered in private. The hearing
took place at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters, St Johns, Enderby, LE19 2BX.
2
Overarching objective
Throughout the decision-making process, the panel has borne in mind the threefold purpose
of the police misconduct regime:
1. To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service;
2. To uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct; and
3. To protect the public.
Regulation 30 Notice of Referral
On the basis of the following facts, it is alleged by the Appropriate Authority (‘AA’) that PC
Pardeshi breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour and that those breaches were so
serious as to justify his dismissal, having been assessed by the AA as amounting to ‘gross
misconduct’.
‘[…]
1.1 At all material times, you were employed by Leicestershire Police, as a
County Lines Development Officer (CLDO) within the East Midlands Special
Operations Unit (EMSOU). You were based within the Force Intelligence
Bureau (FIB) office at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters.
1.2 At all material times, you were subject to Leicestershire Police’s
Appearance Standards Procedure and in particular section 9 which states
‘Male officers employed in non-uniform roles should wear a tie unless their role
dictates otherwise’.
1.3 At all material times, you were subject to Leicestershire Police Sexual
Harassment Policy and in particular;
4
1.8 On 2 February 2024, you were stood within the FIB office.
was present when you indicated to the new sweets within the tuck shop
and used inappropriate and/ or demeaning language when you said to
words to the effect of ‘How much to deep throat one of these?’
1.9 You asked words to the effect of ‘Too far?’ confirmed
with you that it was too far. However, you used inappropriate and/ or
demeaning language when you repeated words to the effect of ‘How much to
deep throat one of these’ to a short time later when she walked past
you in the office.
[…]’
Police Standards of Professional Behaviour (‘SPB’)
It is alleged PC Pardeshi breached the following Standards of Professional Behaviour as set
out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020:
Authority Respect and Courtesy:
“Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the
public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of
all individuals.”
Discreditable Conduct:
“Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service
or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.
5
Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any
conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.”
Equality and Diversity:
Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate
unlawfully or fairly.
Factual witness evidence
The panel received written and oral evidence on behalf of the AA from the following
witnesses:
•
•
The panel also received from the AA written statements and/ or reports from the following
witnesses who were not called to give evidence:
•
•
• Sgt Dolby
•
• DI White
•
•
•
•
PC Pardeshi provided written evidence for this hearing (‘written responses’ of 28 February
and 29 April 2024, plus ‘Regulation 31 response’) and he also gave oral evidence to the panel.
8
Pardeshi was indicating that he was intentionally trying to frustrate my efforts to
ensure that he was complying with my lawful request around appearance standards.’
10. As for PC Pardeshi’s comment referring to him as a Nazi, says this:
‘I am deeply offended by this slur that by enforcing standards PC Pardeshi has
deemed it acceptable to refer to me as a Nazi. I do not need to describe the
connotations that come with the term “Nazi” but it’s deeply and grossly
offensive at a minimum.
The comment was said whilst PC Pardeshi was sat at his desk which whilst not
directly in the main office it is in an open plan environment. I don’t believe that
there were many people around although police staff member did
come out of the office directly next to where we were to speak to me about
a separate matter so may have heard something. I do fear that other people
could have heard the conversation and been deeply offended.
As a Senior officer I also have to consider the reputational risks to the force,
and I am in no doubt the communities of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
would be utterly appalled at the behaviour of PC Pardeshi. The incident has left
me feeling that if PC Pardeshi felt it acceptable to speak to a senior police
officer in this fashion what would his behaviour be like in dealing with members
of the public?
Following the incident, PC Pardeshi had opportunities to apologies to me about
his behaviour, specifically on the 7th of February when he and I were in FIB at
the same time. PC Pardeshi despite seeing me on several occasions did not
address me to apologise. I understood that PSD were reviewing the incident
due to which I did not approach PC Pardeshi on this day.
I believe that this failure to apologise is also indicative of PC Pardeshi’s stance
around his unacceptable behaviour.’
9
11. The panel was also satisfied that PC Pardeshi’s actions amounted to Discreditable
Conduct in that his behaviour was plainly capable of undermining public confidence in
the police service. The panel considered that those two standards, as framed,
accurately captured the totality of his behaviour in relation to and
Accordingly, on the facts proved (and bearing in mind the
particular context in which they occurred), his behaviour does not also amount to a
breach of the standard relating to ‘equality and diversity’.
Regarding PC Pardeshi’s alleged comments to
12. At the hearing’s commencement, PC Pardeshi admitted that, at the material time, he
was subject to Leicestershire Police Sexual Harassment Policy (as particularised at
paragraph 1.3 of the Regulation 30 notice). However, he did not accept he had
conducted himself towards in the way described in paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9
of the Regulation 30 notice.
Evidence
13. In her written account, alleged that on the afternoon of 2 February 2024,
upon crossing the FIB office en route to the printer/toilets area, she walked past the
‘tuckshop’ where she encountered PC Pardeshi:
‘[…] PC Pardeshi said something to me about the new sweets in the tuck shop
and I responded accordingly, I cannot remember exactly what I said.
[PC Pardeshi] then said to me, “How much to deep throat one of these?” and
he pointed towards the strawberry pencils.
I was completely shocked and disgusted by what he had said and my facial
expression would have shown that I did not approve of what he had just said. I
was thinking ‘oh my god what would be thinking
10
hearing, [PC Pardeshi] speaking that way’, is a bit older and I do not think
he would have found it funny, it was totally inappropriate.
[PC Pardeshi] then said, “Too far?”
I agreed and replied, “Yes … too far”
I continued to use the printer/toilet and walked past [PC Pardeshi] and
when I returned to my desk. I had cause to walk past [PC Pardeshi] again shortly
after, [he] again made the comment about deep throating, may have still
been there I cannot be sure.
I said, “No Kam” and walked back to my desk. I left the office shortly afterwards
with my colleagues and I did tell and
what Kam had said to me because I was shocked by it.’
14. She continued,
‘On 12th February 2024, I spoke with my line manager and
told her what had happened. I did this because Kam came up in conversation
and I felt that I needed to say what he had said to me.
I have spoken briefly to Kam since that day, just to say hello in passing, however
nothing further was mentioned between us about what happened on 2nd
February. I haven’t spoken to about it because I wasn’t comfortable in
asking him about it or having to repeat what Kam had said to me.
I am not easily offended or shocked by things that people say, but this shocked
me and I felt uncomfortable for as he could have easily of heard Kam’s
comments.
I think Kam knew that his comments would shock me and even after I told him
no, he then decided to say it again when he knew that it was inappropriate.’
11
15. In oral evidence, maintained the above account.
16. She described PC Pardeshi as a work colleague; one with whom she could talk and
‘have a laugh’ (‘he is quite a friendly person’). She described his humour as being
sometimes quite ‘hard to read’. For example, he would ‘poke fun’ at his own racial
identity and she was not sure whether she should laugh. She would chat to him,
though, as she did not want to be rude. Before this incident, she never experienced
any problem with him. There was no ill-will between them.
17. In relation to the events of 2 February 2024, confirmed that when PC
Pardeshi made the alleged comments, they were in close proximity to one another.
There was nothing that might cause her to mishear what he had said. She was
unequivocal that she had not mistaken about the words he had used.
18. Reflecting upon his comments, she perceived them as a badly misjudged ‘joke’ on his
part; she did not consider that he intended his words to have any greater resonance.
19. confirmed that she had mentioned PC Pardeshi’s comments to a couple of
people on the way to the car park later that day (saying words to the effect of ‘I can’t
believe what Kam said’). Then, when colleagues in the office were talking about PC
Pardeshi’s comments to she said words to the effect of, ‘I’m not
surprised’, recounting the incident in question.
20. This led to the matter being escalated. However, although she was subsequently asked
to note down the incident at the request of she had not wished to escalate
the matter. Rather, she considered she had dealt with it at the time, by her response
directly to PC Pardeshi.
21. Her note to (prepared sometime between 2 February and 13th February)
was framed thus:
14
29. There are no independent witnesses nor any documentary evidence able to relate
directly to what was said between PC Pardeshi and It is fundamentally,
therefore, a question of word-against-word. The panel was mindful that the burden
of proof was upon the AA. It was also mindful that PC Pardeshi’s good character, prior
to the generality of the matters in the regulation 30 notice, could be counted in his
favour when assessing both his credibility and his probity, albeit the weight it could
attaching to his good character was a matter for the panel.
30. On balance, however, the panel considered evidence to be more credible
and reliable. That account, both written and in oral evidence to the panel, was
provided in an open, balanced and nuanced way.
31. The panel determined there was no evidence that might explain why would
be mistaken about what she heard. She and PC Pardeshi were in close proximity, and
facing each other, when the conversation took place. There was no evidence to
suggest she was distracted at the time, nor any evidence of ambient noise that might
have diminished her capacity to hear his words. The panel noted, too, that
would need to have been mistaken not once, but three times, about PC Pardeshi’s
comments:
• When she first heard him say (what she took to be the words) ‘How much to
deep throat one of these?’;
• When she then heard him say ‘too far?”; then (a little later)
• When she heard him again say words to the effect of ‘How much to deep throat
one of these’.
32. PC Pardeshi’s evidence is that none of this occurred. If, however, his initial comment
had been something innocuous which had simply misheard as ‘deep throat’,
why did he then say, ‘too far’? If, alternatively, he had neither said the ‘deep throat’
comment nor ‘too far?’; her subsequent response (‘yeah Kam, too far’) would surely
have been striking enough to have been memorable to him, lacking any intelligible
context from his perspective. Yet he says he does not recount any of this.
15
33. In short, therefore, the panel did not consider that could have been mistaken
about the exchange.
34. Consequently, it went on to consider whether might simply have fabricated
her account. It did not find this plausible. and PC Pardeshi each confirmed
to the panel that there was no ill-will between them; indeed, theirs was a friendly
professional relationship. It was also clear, from her account to that
never had any desire to pursue a complaint against PC Pardeshi. Rather, she
considered she had dealt with the matter to conclusion at the time. While the panel
had regard to some of surrounding inconsistencies (i.e., in terms of how others
recalled what they were told and when), the panel considered such variations more
likely reflected the passage of time between when those individuals were given
information by and when they were subsequently asked to recall it.
35. Taking all these factors into account, the panel determined that – applying the civil
standard of proof – PC Pardeshi did make the comments alleged. That is to say, it
preferred evidence as more likely than PC Pardeshi’s.
36. The panel was in no doubt that such behaviour amounted to a breach of the standard
of Authority, Respect and Courtesy in that PC Pardeshi had not acted with self-control
and had not treated his colleague, with respect and courtesy. Although the
panel considered that words spoken were intended as a joke, the language he used
was wholly inappropriate. Worse, he repeated the words even after had
made clear it was unacceptable.
37. The panel was also satisfied that PC Pardeshi’s actions amounted to Discreditable
Conduct in that his behaviour was plainly capable of undermining public confidence in
the police service.
38. The panel considered that those two standards, as framed, accurately captured the
totality of his behaviour in relation to Accordingly, on the facts proved (and
17
44. In summary, on the basis of the facts proved, the panel has determined that PC
Pardeshi breached the two standards of professional behaviour identified, and that
his behaviour in these regards amounted to misconduct.
Stage two: Outcome
The panel’s approach
45. When considering outcome, the Panel followed the College of Policing “Guidance on
outcomes in police misconduct proceedings (2023)” (“the Guidance”). That Guidance
confirms that there are 3 stages to determining the appropriate outcome.
46. First, the panel must assess the seriousness of the misconduct. This is assessed by
reference to:
• The officer’s culpability.
• The harm caused by the misconduct, including reputational harm to the police
service.
• The existence of aggravating factors;
• The existence of mitigating factors
47. Second, the panel must keep in the mind the purpose of imposing sanctions. Namely,
• To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service;
• To uphold the high standards in policing and deterring misconduct; and
• To protect the public.
48. Thirdly, the panel must choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that said
purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.
49. While the outcome imposed can have a punitive effect, it should be no more than is
necessary to satisfy the purpose of the proceedings.
18
50. The guidance is clear that the panel is required to consider less severe outcomes
before more severe ones, and that it should choose the least severe outcome that
deals adequately with the issues identified, while protecting the public interest. If an
outcome is necessary to satisfy the purpose of the proceedings, the panel should
impose it even where this would lead to difficulties for the individual officer.
51. In determining outcome in relation to PC Pardeshi, this panel confirms that it took into
account all submissions by the parties, and all documentary material placed before it.
Panel findings
52. Taking the three-step approach, the panel first considered issues relevant to
seriousness.
53. Despite the wider context (§64-67, below), it considered that PC Pardeshi was entirely
blameworthy for his actions: his comments to and were
deliberate and unwarranted utterances, entirely unsolicited, and unbecoming of any
professional in a workplace setting. It is plain from their response that each was
shocked at what they heard. Such remarks effect discipline and good order in the
Force and, in the panel’s view, they would quite properly cause reputational harm to
the standing of the police if known to the wider public.
54. The misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it occurred on three occasions and in
relation to three separate police colleagues, two of whom were more senior officers.
(The point here being, for the avoidance of doubt, not that such comments would be
acceptable to peers or more junior colleagues, but that police command structures
are undermined where overt displays of disrespect occur in the workplace.)
55. The panel noted that the ‘deep throat’ comment was repeated to even after
PC Pardeshi had realised he had overstepped the boundaries of workplace humour
(‘too far?’), and she had expressly told him so (‘Yes, Kam, too far’).
19
56. Although interpreted his comments as a ‘joke’, and although there was
nothing to suggest that in making the comment PC Pardeshi had any predatory intent;
the ‘joke’ was nevertheless a sexist one made at the expense of a female colleague,
and its effect was always likely to diminish and embarrass its recipient. (Notably,
said she did not speak to about it because, as she had put it, ‘I wasn’t
comfortable in asking him about it or having to repeat what Kam had said to me. I am
not easily offended or shocked by things that people say, but this shocked me and I felt
uncomfortable for as he could have easily of heard Kam’s comments. I think Kam
knew that his comments would shock me and even after I told him no, he then decided
to say it again when he knew that it was inappropriate.’) PC Pardeshi clearly knew such
comments would be inappropriate, as he makes plain through his advocate in his
Regulation 31 response.
57. The panel noted, too, that although there appears to have been opportunity to do so,
PC Pardeshi did not apologise to any of his three colleagues at the time of his
behaviour.
58. Set against those matters, the panel considered the following to be mitigating factors
in this case.
59. First, each of his comments appears to have unplanned, of brief duration, and were
all made over a narrow period of time (possibly no more than one week) set against
the background of an otherwise flawless and circumspect two-decade police career.
60. It is clear that, although PC Pardeshi was known widely for his sense of humour (a
humour. often directed upon himself), it had not otherwise been framed so
offensively nor so badly misjudged.
61. Indeed, for all his humour, the evidence placed before the panel speaks with one voice
in commending his professional qualities in the workplace. For example,
23
65. It is plain from the combined accounts of Dolby, White
and that this was indeed an ongoing issue for PC Pardeshi during the period
from November 2023 into February 2024, and one which had animated him
significantly.
66. The impact of it finds its echo in a report, dated 20 November 2024, from PC Pardeshi’s
doctor
67. In the panel’s assessment, the stress of these matters adversely effected PC Pardeshi’s
judgement during the timeframe under consideration. It was against the background
of these issues, and the email referred to at §1.4 of the Regulation 30 notice, that
matters reached a pitch for PC Pardeshi such that, by late January/ early February
2024, he spoke as he did to officer then on 6 February to officer
and, between those dates, to officer In each instance, his customary and better
judgment entirely left him.
68. While PC Pardeshi remains unable to accept he could have said those words to
he made open admissions at an early stage in relation to the facts set out at
1.1-1.7 of the Regulation 30 notice, exhibiting genuine remorse, and insight, as well as
accepting responsibility for his actions.
24
69. Set against all the above factors bearing upon seriousness, and with the purpose of
the police misconduct regime in mind, the panel considered the sanction options
available, in order of severity.
70. Given the number of comments made, their nature, and the number of recipients, the
panel did not consider that a written warning would suffice, notwithstanding the
circumstances. It determined, instead, that the least severe outcome it could impose
would be a final written warning, albeit one that it should be for the minimum period
of two years.
Paul Dawkins, Assistant Chief Officer,
Hearings Chair,
10 December 2024
