In an unusual courtroom encounter, lawyer Anura Singh and her father, former Inspector General of Bareilly Range Dr. Rakesh Singh, found themselves on opposite sides in a case concerning the dismissal of a Uttar Pradesh police head constable. The Allahabad High Court, in an order dated July 31, 2025, quashed the termination of Head Constable Tofeek Ahmad, directing that he be reinstated, with liberty for the department to conduct a fresh inquiry.
Background of the Case
Tofeek Ahmad, accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, was dismissed from service on December 11, 2023. His departmental appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, then IG Bareilly Range Dr. Rakesh Singh.
Ahmad challenged the dismissal in the High Court (Writ-A No. 10159 of 2025), represented by advocate Anura Singh. Her father’s role as the earlier appellate authority and the government’s position in the case meant that the two ended up on opposite ends of the dispute.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the inquiry officer had acted beyond his jurisdiction by recommending termination in the inquiry report. This, it was submitted, contravened Rule 14(1) and Appendix-I of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which prohibit inquiry officers from suggesting specific punishments. Reliance was placed on the Court’s earlier ruling in Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. (2019), which upheld this interpretation.
Court’s Observations
Justice Ajit Kumar observed that the inquiry officer’s report, dated April 14, 2023, not only held the charges proved but also recommended dismissal — a course of action barred by the 1991 Rules. The Court held that such a recommendation rendered the report legally flawed and should have been rejected by the disciplinary authority.
The Court noted that the disciplinary authority relied on the inquiry officer’s recommendation without applying independent judgment. Referring to Supreme Court rulings in Krishna Rai (Dead) v. Banaras Hindu University (2022), Tata Chemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2015), and Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2012), the judge reiterated that powers conferred by law must be exercised strictly in the prescribed manner, and penalties not authorised by statutory rules cannot be imposed.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed both the inquiry report and the termination order. Ahmad was ordered to be restored to his position as it stood on the date of dismissal. If the disciplinary authority chooses to initiate a fresh inquiry, it must appoint a new inquiry officer and complete the process within three months of receiving the certified order.
Professional Standpoints of Father and Daughter
According to Anura Singh, the case was approached purely on professional grounds. She represented her client based on the legal merits, while her father acted in his official capacity as part of the state’s representation. She explained that while the police department has strict policies regarding conduct, including in cases under the POCSO Act, the High Court has overriding authority to review such matters.
She indicated that following the High Court’s order, compliance will be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, after which Ahmad’s reinstatement will take effect.
Dr. Rakesh Singh also maintained that the matter was handled professionally on both sides. He said he remained within the legal framework in representing the government’s position and expressed confidence in his daughter’s capabilities, noting her potential for a long and successful legal career.
The compliance of the High Court’s order is now awaited by the Bareilly district police.
