Seems to me the issue of whether his pension would be forfeited/cut for this sort of misconduct is the more important issue here, not the way in which he ceases to be a serving police officer with potentially dubious morals and decision-making capabilities…
One way or another, taxpayers pay for employment tribunals/disciplinaries etc in the public sector. Although I do have issue about how long and how costly these procedures are in public service: ie it is very very long, complex and expensive process to sack someone through really obvious misconduct let alone poor performance/being rubbish. Sometimes the most righteous course of action is (pragmatically speaking) not the best one due to the cost, and also whatever public service the people involved in it won’t be able to do while they are busy doing the ‘right’ thing.
I remember someone I knew being sacked from a reasonably paid (about 35k iirc) health service post: the easily measurable and impossible to argue against bits were what he got dismissed for. To have sacked him for everything else it was widely alleged he had done wrong would have been far more ‘right’ for those involved (although TBF this was staff not patients iirc, perhaps it would have been different again had their been clear direct harm to individual patients rather than the service) butthis would have cost the trust (and so you the taxpayer) far more for the same end result. Obviously this would have been easier if he had resigned, but it was still better for taxpayer to have thrown a couple of books at him not the whole bookshelf.