The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that a subordinate police officer cannot be accused of misconduct for expressing an opinion in an inquiry report submitted under the directions of his superior officers, even if those comments pertain to a pending trial. A division bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai partly allowed a writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, upholding the State Public Service Tribunal’s decision to quash the dismissal of the officer, Amaresh Kumar Singh Baghel. Crucially, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s directions to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry, completely clearing the officer of the misconduct charges.
Background of the Case
The case originated from First Information Report (FIR) No. 548 of 2019 registered against an accused, Atul Rai, under Sections 420, 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, MP/MLA Court, Prayagraj, where the trial commenced.
During the pendency of the trial, the father of the accused submitted a complaint on April 20, 2020, to the Additional Director General of Police, Varanasi Range (ADG), raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation. The ADG took cognizance of the complaint and directed the Director General of Police, Varanasi (DG) to inquire and submit a report. Subsequently, on June 16, 2020, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi (DIG) directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi (SSP) to inquire and report, who in turn directed the respondent, Amaresh Kumar Singh Baghel—then serving as the Circle Officer, Bhelupur, Varanasi—to conduct the inquiry.
The respondent proceeded with the inquiry, reviewed all record materials, including call records and available evidence, and submitted his report on August 8, 2020. In this report, the respondent opined that the criminal case against the accused was a conspiracy, the allegations were false, and there was insufficient material to support the complainant’s case. He recommended that an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the IPC should be moved.
Initially, the Superintendent of Police (City), Varanasi, reviewed and approved the respondent’s findings in a report dated December 11, 2020, agreeing that further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was appropriate.
However, the situation shifted when the SSP, Varanasi, issued a review letter on December 17, 2020, and submitted a report on December 29, 2020, stating that because the trial was already underway and a competent court had taken cognizance, the matter did not deserve reinvestigation. The SSP deemed the respondent’s comments highly objectionable as they could interfere with the court’s proceedings.
On December 30, 2020, a rapid series of administrative communications took place from the IG to the ADG, ADG to the DG, and the DG to the State. Consequently, the respondent was suspended on the very same day. He was served a charge sheet on February 17, 2021, and dismissed from service on October 18, 2021.
The respondent challenged his dismissal before the State Public Service Tribunal, which on September 11, 2025, allowed his petition. The Tribunal held that while there might have been negligence in the respondent’s choice of words, it did not amount to misconduct. The Tribunal quashed the dismissal due to violations of natural justice and disproportionate punishment but remanded the matter back to the State Government to proceed afresh from the stage of the charge sheet.
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Additional Advocate General Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar and Standing Counsel Sri Vivek Shukla, challenged the Tribunal’s order. They argued that the respondent accepted the task of inquiring and made unwarranted comments regarding a pending trial, which justified the initiation of major penalty proceedings and the subsequent dismissal order.
The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Gaurav Mehrotra and Sri Amit Singh, opposed the writ petition. They argued that the Tribunal had correctly found that submitting the inquiry report did not constitute misconduct, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Punjab Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2188. They further contended that because no misconduct was established, the Tribunal erred in directing the State to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings from the stage of the charge sheet.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined whether the respondent’s act of submitting the inquiry report under these specific circumstances constituted misconduct.
The Court observed that the respondent had conducted the inquiry under the direct orders of his superiors. The bench noted:
“There was no limitation placed upon him nor was his role prescribed by any of his superior officers and carte blanche was given to him to submit the inquiry report.”
The Court highlighted that the respondent’s report was merely an opinion submitted to his superior officers and was not filed directly in the competent court. The superior authorities were not bound by this opinion and could have easily rejected it if they believed it violated statutory provisions or interfered with the trial.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the SP (City) had explicitly accepted and affirmed the respondent’s findings in a detailed report but faced no disciplinary action from the State. The Court noted that no satisfactory explanation was provided as to why the SP (City) was not proceeded against if submitting such a report indeed constituted misconduct.
Citing the landmark judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2188, the High Court reiterated that “any negligence in discharge of duty would not construe misconduct.” The Court added that there were no allegations that the respondent’s opinion was given under the influence of any external authority or person.
The bench concluded:
“no misconduct was conducted by the respondent by submitting his inquiry report.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court found that since no case of misconduct was made out against the respondent, the State could not be allowed to proceed with a fresh inquiry.
The bench held:
“directions of the Tribunal with regard to remanding the matter back to the petitioners for inquiring afresh against the respondent, is clearly illegal and arbitrary”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision to quash the dismissal of the respondent, but quashing the portion of the Tribunal’s order that remanded the matter back to the State for fresh disciplinary proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Police Services U.P. Lko. vs. Amaresh Kumar Singh Baghel
Case No.: WRITA No. 4055 of 2026
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur, Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Date: July 10, 2026
