A former Drugs worker in Bradford has been found to have been racially discriminated against by the Home Office.

An employment tribunal in Leeds has ruled that Saeed Butt, a former senior development officer with the Government-run Drugs Prevention Initiative (DPI) had been discriminated against on three counts - one of them racial.

But the tribunal dismissed another three claims of discrimination by Mr Butt, of White Abbey Road, Bradford.

A Home Office spokesman said it was "concerned" about the ruling and would be seeking legal advice as to the possibility of any grounds for appeal.

But Mr Butt, 38, believes he might have succeeded on other counts if had he been represented by a professional. He had to represent himself at the hearing as he could not afford a lawyer.

He said he also found there was a lack of organisations offering support and advice with only the Human Rights Action Group helping.

He said: "I have had some support but one thing I have found through bitter experience is that more places should be available to support people with issues like this."

Mr Butt began work at the DPI in 1991 and throughout his time there he was the only Asian in the Bradford office and, he says, the only Pakistani employee that the organisation had nationally. The findings of the tribunal relate in part to a period in 1998 when an earlier tribunal hearing brought by Mr Butt against the Home Office was still outstanding.

This first tribunal did not find in his favour. But the latest hearing has decided that the DPI's failure to send him an application pack for the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) was discrimination through victimisation. The packs to apply for jobs at the DPAS, which was replacing the DPI, were sent to all employees except Mr Butt who was on sick leave at the time.

More seriously the tribunal said that the DPI's decision to offer him a place in Manchester rather than Bradford was racial discrimination and victimisation. The judgement said the explanation offered by the Home Office for the decision was inadequate and unsatisfactory.

It reads: "He was not consulted as to whether it was in his best interests that he should work in Manchester. He was, in effect, presented with a fait accompli. In those circumstances we are bound to ask whether the decision was made solely in the respondent's (Home Office's) best interests."

Mr Butt, now an employment adviser, said he was "quite happy" about the judgement but would be seeking advice about whether to appeal against the three counts that were not found in his favour.

The tribunal has adjourned to decide what action should be taken following the judgement.