A former West Midlands Police sergeant has resigned after it was revealed he was secretly employed in a second job in Scotland, in breach of force policy. Amitav Sarkar stepped down just one day before a disciplinary hearing, where it was determined he would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had he remained in the force.
The investigation found that Sarkar failed to inform West Midlands Police about his concurrent employment with Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, where he worked as a victim information advice officer between March 2022 and March 2025. This non-disclosure was described by the disciplinary panel as a deliberate attempt to conceal his dual employment and salary.
Panel chair Debra Tedds stated, “I believe that the former officer’s actions were deliberate, targeted and intentional whereby he sought to conceal the fact that he was employed and received a salary from both organisations.”
READ MORE: Liberal Democrats Propose 10p Fuel Duty Cut to Reduce Pump Prices by 12p per Litre
READ MORE: Families Face Growing Housing Benefit Shortfall Ahead of Autumn Statement
Sarkar joined West Midlands Police in October 2022 but did not disclose his role with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, contravening the force’s requirement to declare outside employment. Numerous integrity health check forms completed by Sarkar also failed to mention this secondary employment, despite his acknowledgment of understanding what constitutes a business interest.
While Sarkar acknowledged holding both positions simultaneously, he argued that this did not amount to gross misconduct, citing ongoing claims against the procurator fiscal office as justification for maintaining his dual roles. However, the panel rejected these claims, emphasising that policy required disclosure regardless of ongoing legal matters.
The panel found no evidence that Sarkar expressed remorse or recognised the impact of his actions on public confidence or the force’s reputation. Instead, he attempted to justify his conduct and avoided taking responsibility.
Sarkar was found to have breached professional standards concerning orders and instructions, honesty, integrity, and conduct discreditable to the police. The panel noted that as a sergeant and supervisory officer, Sarkar was responsible not only for his own compliance but also for guiding more junior officers through integrity health checks and ensuring understanding of relevant policies.
Despite his request to keep his name confidential for personal and medical reasons, the panel determined no medical evidence was provided to support this, and prioritised open justice, acknowledging only potential personal embarrassment.
The case highlights the importance of transparency and adherence to disclosure policies within the police force, particularly among those in leadership roles.