Boris Johnson is facing a lawsuit in order to protect Priti Paltel

By Ashis Ray.By Ashis RaLondon, Nov 13 : Priti Patel, the Indian-origin British Home Secretary, has triggered a court case against Prime Minister Boris Johnsons decision last year not to dismiss her for alleged unacceptable behaviour with Philip Rutnam, a permanent secretary in the home office, who resigned on this issue.

London, November 13 : .Priti Patel of Indian origin has been charged with wrongful dismissal by Prime Minister Boris Johnson for her alleged incongruous behavior with Philip Rutnam, a permanent Secretary at the Home Office, who resigned over this matter.Rutnam maintained he had been the target of "a vicious and orchestrated campaign against him", and that Patel had been behind it.Rutnam claimed he was the victim of a "vicious and orchestrated campaign against" him, and that Patel was behind it.On November 17 and 18, the high court in London will hear a petition filed by The Association of First Division Civil Servants (FDA), a trade union which seeks a judicial opinion on the legal validity or otherwise of the ministerial code.The high court in London will hear a petition by The Association of First Division Civil Servants, a trade union that seeks a judicial opinion about the legal validity of the ministerial codes.

Johnson decreed Patel hadnt breached the ministerial code even after his independent adviser appointed for the purpose Alex Allan, following an investigation, found that the home secretary had "not consistently met the high standards expected of her".Johnson ruled that Patel had not violated the ministerial codes even though Alex Allan, his independent advisor, was appointed to the task.

An investigation revealed that Patel had "not consistently met high standards expected" of her.His conclusion was she had violated the ministerial code, even if inadvertently.He concluded that she had inadvertently violated the ministerial codes.

Johnson, who is the final arbiter on the matter, however, refused to take the finding to a logical conclusion.Johnson, the final arbiter in the matter, refused to accept the conclusion.Doing so would have meant sacking Patel.

This would have required Patel to be fired.The Guardian newspaper reported that the Prime Minister had texted a group urging them to "form a (protective) square around the Prittster (nickname for Priti)".

According to The Guardian newspaper, the Prime Minister sent a group of people a text requesting that they "form a (protective), square around the Prittster (nicknamed for Priti)." Even in a recent cabinet reshuffle, when there was considerable speculation that she might be moved to a lesser portfolio, this did not happen.

Even though there was much speculation that she might be moving to a lower portfolio during a cabinet reshuffle recently, it did not occur.Allan resigned from his position after the bottom line of his probe wasnt acted upon by Johnson.

Johnson failed to act on the bottom line of Allans probe and Allan was forced to resign.Furthermore, Rutnam had to be disbursed 340,000 pounds as a settlement and another 30,000 pounds as costs.

Rutnam was also required to pay 340,000 pounds in settlement and another 30,000 pounds for costs.This was not the first time that accusations of misconduct had been levelled against Patel and money to defuse the situation had had to be paid out by the British government.

Patel was accused of misconduct not once but twice.The British government had to pay money to resolve the situation.

FDA General Secretary Dave Penman was quoted as saying: "The prime ministers decision, which he said reflected the Home Secretarys assertion that her actions were unintentional, also potentially allows ministers to avoid the consequences of their behaviour in future by pleading that it should be the intent of their actions which is important, not the consequences.According to FDA General Secretary Dave Penman, the prime ministers decision was a reflection of the Home Secretarys claim that her actions were not intentional.

It also allows ministers to potentially avoid future consequences by pleading that it should have been the intention of their actions that is important and not the consequences."The result is that civil servants confidence in challenging unacceptable behaviour from ministers has been fatally damaged."."The result is that civil servants have lost their confidence in challenging ministers unacceptable behavior." A recent poll of British civil servants discovered that 90 per cent of them had no faith in the ministerial code as a way of redressing grievances against errant ministers.

Recent polls of British civil servants revealed that 90% of them did not believe in the ministerial codes as a way to redress grievances against errant Ministers.Last week, an independent committee on Standards in Public Life emphasised: "Meaningful independence is the benchmark for any effective form of standards regulation and current arrangements for the adviser still fall below this bar.".A committee independent of Standards in Public Life stated last week that "Meaningful Independence is the benchmark for any effective form standard regulation, and current arrangements for advisers still fall below this bar." The minister-civil servant relationship in India mirrors Whitehall, since India adopted the Westminster system of government at the time of its independence.Since India adopted the Westminster system at independence, the minister-civil servant relationship in India is similar to Whitehall #Boris #Johnson #lawsuit #protect #Priti #Paltel.