The story itself is bullshit, as he isn't suing the force - the case is being heard by an industrial tribunal. Also, he was concerned about far more than being made to look silly - his complaint centres around the forces failure to respect the long established protocols made for Sikh policemen.
But that's not what is interesting.
The Mail story appears to be pirated from an article written by Mike Keegan and published in the Manchester Evening News the day before. The two articles are very similar - the paragraphs have been swapped around a bit and the detail included in the MEN story has been removed and hysterical flim-flam substituted, but other than that, it looks like a straightforward rip-off by the Mail.
MEN is owned by the Guardian Media Group, and the Mail by Associated Newspapers, so it doesn't appear to be a case of the blurring between titles that seems to be getting increasingly common.
I've emailed Mike Keegan to find out if this was authorised. Could be interesting if it wasn't.
1 - "You plonkers! Sikh policeman suing Force over fears he'd be asked to wear modified turban says: 'I felt like I was on Only Fools and Horses'," unattributed article published in The Daily Mail, 17th of September, 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213811/You-plonkers-Sikh-policeman-suing-Force-asking-wear-modified-turban-says-I-felt-like-I-Only-Fools-Horses.html#ixzz0RLIf0VOF)
2 -"Sikh police officer 'offended' by turban demand," by Mike Keegan, published in The Manchester Evening News, 16th of September, 2009. (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1136987_sikh_police_officer_offended_by_turban_demand)