Senior Metropolitan police officers came under fire today for behaving like a “pack of rottweilers” whenever they get a hint of discrimination.

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said lessons had to be learnt after a white police officer accused of racism by an Asian colleague won his racial and sexual discrimination case.

Detective Constable Tom Hassell, 60, brought the case against the Metropolitan Police to an employment tribunal after he was investigated along with two senior officers for remarks he apparently made during a police training session in 1999.

He was alleged to have referred to Muslim Shi’ites as “shitties” and told how they wore tea cosies on their heads.

A complaint was made by Detective Sergeant Shabnam Chaudhri, who also criticised Acting Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore, 39, and Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood, 55, for not taking appropriate action over Mr Hassell’s words.

All three were suspended for several weeks before appearing before a disciplinary tribunal where the tea cosy remark was upheld as misconduct.

Although all three were found guilty no further action was taken.

When the officers appealed the disciplinary result, Britain’s most senior Asian police officer Assistant Commissioner Tariq Ghaffur, cleared all three men, saying it was “incredible” that the case had been brought at all.

DC Hassell, who had 26 years of unblemished conduct and had been presented with a police good conduct medal, claimed he had been a victim of political correctness and had it not been for Det Sgt Chaudhri’s race, sex and religious background the matter would not have progressed further than the most informal stage.

But Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, who was then the Deputy Commissioner, said he considered it “extraordinary” that the June 2001 misconduct board had found the officers guilty but decided that “no further action” was the appropriate sanction.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, he wanted to know if the board’s decision could be challenged. He was later advised that it could not.

Giving evidence to the employment tribunal at Stratford, east London, Sir Ian denied trying to leave the officers “hanging out to dry” over the comments simply because they were white.

He insisted his attempts to increase the officers’ punishment had not been a knee-jerk reaction to defend the force’s reputation in the wake of the 1999 Macpherson Report, which accused it of being “institutionally racist.”

The slurs made during a racial awareness training day were “repetitive, deliberate and offensive” and had no place in the modern-day police force, he said.

The tribunal heard that in a bungled presentation on Islam, DC Hassell referred to Muslim headwear as “tea cosies”, mispronounced Shi’ites as “shitties” and said he felt sorry for followers of the faith who fasted during Ramadan.

Although DC Hassell apologised immediately for his mispronunciation, DS Chaudhri, now a Detective Inspector, complained he had been racist and that his superiors failed to intervene.

He said he was convinced Ms Chaudhri made her complaint because she was under pressure and facing investigation for her own alleged poor policing.

From then on, the officer claimed, Ms Chaudhri was treated preferentially while he was offered no support.

The three officers successfully sued the Metropolitan Police for racial and sexual discrimination.

Mr Smyth said there were three important lessons to be learnt from the case.

“The first is that absolutely anybody working for the Metropolitan Police is a potential victim of discrimination, regardless of their sex or ethnicity – as, indeed, they are in other organisations.

“The second is that discrimination can come right from the people at the top who profess to be fighting it.

“The third is that certain senior managers in the Met must stop behaving like a pack of rottweilers after a rabbit whenever they pick up the slightest scent of what might – or might not – be racism or any other form of discrimination.”

He continued: “Police Regulations state unambiguously that while a chief officer can, on appeal, uphold or reduce the sanction decided upon by the original hearing he may not increase the punishment.

“The Metropolitan Police Federation is opposed to discrimination in any form because it is unjust. Equally, we oppose any actions by senior managers that interfere with justice for any officers we represent.”

In a statement the Metropolitan Police said: “We are disappointed with the outcome of the Employment Tribunal but will give careful consideration to its findings.

“However, we believe that this case was defended in good faith and we would not have done so if we had not felt that it was the most appropriate course of action.

“All the facts of the original allegations which date back six years and the subsequent disciplinary process were carefully considered before a course of action was taken. We have and will continue to challenge instances of what we believe to be inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour.

“We acknowledge the officers’ right to have pursued the claim because the Metropolitan police service is big enough to encompass other points of view and we are sorry that the process has hurt all the officers involved.

“But not to have defended it would have flown in the face of everything that we are trying to achieve in relation to how we treat our own staff and the people of London.

“The Met is policing probably the most diverse city in the world. We have a duty to help our staff understand diversity and to create a workforce that reflects London’s make-up.

“Ensuring that our staff meet the needs of London’s many communities is not an add-on, it is about making policing more effective.

“We will not be diverted from our intolerance of inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour and our determination to deal with it robustly when necessary. It is vital for the moral health of the organisation for everyone to feel that if they make a complaint, it will be properly dealt with.”