In less than a week, three separate bullying charges have been lodged against Patel. The earliest, from when she was a junior minister at the Department for Work and Pensions in 2015, centres on a formal complaint of bullying and harassment. The second, from her time as international development secretary in 2017, involves what has been called a “tsunami of allegations” as well as “shocking” bullying of her own private secretary. The third, which came in her permanent secretary’s resignation statement, accuses her of creating fear by shouting, swearing, belittling, and making unreasonable and repeated demands.

Already voices demanding her resignation are reverberating in the political circle. The situation might not have deteriorated to such an extent if she had handled tactfully and maintained restraint. The situation worsened after her permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam, quit after accusing her of orchestrating a ‘vicious’ campaign against him.

Rutnam has been a fairly senior bureaucrat. This even prompted the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to demand independent inquiry into Priti Patel bullying claims. The Labour party has called for the home secretary, Priti Patel, to stand down while a lawyer-led “genuinely independent” inquiry is carried out into bullying allegations against her.

Patel’s permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam, quit on Saturday, accusing Patel of orchestrating a “vicious” campaign against him, of lying about her involvement in it and of creating a climate of fear in her department. She was also accused of shouting at a former aide with “unprovoked aggression” before removing her from her job. The BBC reported that the aide received a £25,000 government payout after a threatened lawsuit in which Patel was named.

Priti Patel has come under increased pressure to resign as home secretary as another bullying allegation emerged just hours after the Cabinet Office launched formal inquiry into claims she had mistreated her permanent secretary.

The explosive new allegations followed Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to launch a Cabinet Office investigation into earlier claims Patel had lied and bullied her permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam.

Soon after, the government conceded in response to an urgent question from Jeremy Corbyn that there would be an inquiry into Patel’s actions. The new set of allegations accused her of acting “without warning” and with “an unprovoked level of aggression”.

In the House of Commons, Corbyn said if the earlier “serious allegations” raised by Rutnam about the home secretary’s conduct were true “then that would clearly constitute a breach of the ministerial code”. The Labour leader added: “Why, without a proper investigation, has the prime minister defended the home secretary, calling her fantastic and saying he absolutely has confidence in her?

Priti Patel is a very lucky home secretary. Twenty-five years ago, when Michael Howard did her current job, the Conservative party lapped up his hardline penal policy of “three strikes and you’re out”. Patel shares much of Howard’s philosophy. But she is lucky his three strikes doctrine has gone. Patel would not be in her job if it applied.

Ministers and senior officials have almost routinely had difficult relationships in the past. But that never resulted in career officials resigning. The adviser –politician relation has been strong in the UK. No minister in the past had triggered the situation in such a manner that a bureaucrat had to quit.

Priti Patel has been in advantageous position with some more senior colleagues and Tory leaders backing her. Meanwhile the sources maintain that the resignation of Sajid Javid as chancellor last month gives Patel a stay of execution. Johnson could not afford to lose two of his top three ministers so quickly.

Patel stands for an essentially Thatcherite approach. Patel emulates Thatcher’s distinctive and divisive combination of liberal possessive individualism and authoritarian social policy. Nevertheless this does not make her another Thatcher. In fact Patel as home secretary has become one of the embodiments of the Tory right’s current capture of the party.

Though Boris Johnson says he will 'stick by' Patel under fire from Labour, the increasing attack on her has also scared the Tory leadership. Boris Johnson himself has come under fire for defending Priti Patel amid bullying claims .Boris Johnson has given the government’s strongest backing yet for Priti Patel in the wake of fresh bullying allegations, insisting the home secretary was doing an “outstanding job”, as Jeremy Corbyn demanded an independent inquiry into whether she had broken the ministerial code.

Patel sitting alongside Johnson on the frontbench while the prime minister replied to the questions on her and asserting that she was keeping the country safe by increasing the number of police officers on the streets and bringing in a system to “tackle our migration crisis”, is being viewed as her coming out of the crisis. Defending her Johnson replied: “She is keeping this country safe by putting in record numbers of police officers. She believes in stopping the early release of offenders and she is bringing in a system to tackle our migration crisis with an Australian-style points-based system.”

Given that Patel had been sacked from her last Cabinet job by then Prime Minister Theresa May for a misjudged meeting on a trip to Israel, there was a sense that if she returned to government it would be in a fairly junior role. Instead, she was appointed by Boris to a great office of state and became the most senior woman in Johnson’s Cabinet. In the Tory circle Patel is described as “more right wing than Thatcher”.

Labour has accused Cummings and Gove, both close aides of Boris, of being behind a culture of intimidation of civil servants and has called for the inquiry into Patel to be “genuinely independent”.

Sir Philip Rutnam, has begun legal action against the government over his treatment by Priti Patel. Legal documents name the home secretary, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office as respondents. It would mean that Patel will be expected to give evidence under oath if the case comes to tribunal. (IPA Service)