Allahabad High Court Orders Reinstatement Of ADGC (Criminal) Accused Of Making Comments Against Mahatma Gandhi

A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that the entire action against the petitioner appeared to be full of malice.

“…it is apparent that in order to oust the petitioner from the panel, some vague material, authenticity whereof was not established even in the inquiry conducted as noted in the inquiry report, has been utilised to the detriment of the interest of the petitioner,” the bench remarked in its order.

Furthermore, stressing that no other material might justify taking action against the petitioner, the Court said that the State Government was not justified in passing the order approving immediate cessation of the petitioner's attachment as ADGC (Criminal).

Thus, setting the same aside, the court directed that the petitioner be reinstated to the ADGC (Criminal) post, Hathras, within three weeks.

The Court passed this order on an appeal by the petitioner, challenging the order impugned.

It was his case that the order was passed based on a report sent by the District Magistrate, Hathras, to the Special Secretary, Law Department, annexing therewith an inquiry report of a two-member committee comprising of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Circle Officer.

It was his submission that the entire contents of the inquiry report go to show that the video, which was allegedly displayed before the inquiry committee, did not mention the source as to who had recorded the same and how the inquiry committee got access to it.

It was also urged that the impugned order has been passed, mentioning a wrong observation that the petitioner made some objectionable comments against the 'Father of Nation' (Mahatma Gandhi).

Though Standing Counsel submitted that the entire action was based upon an inquiry report, he very reasonably submitted that neither petitioner was provided an opportunity to make his defence before the inquiry committee nor was the authenticity of the video checked at any point.

Considering the submissions of both parties, the Court allowed the writ plea by the petitioner, granting him the relief of reinstatement.

Case title – Raj Pal Singh Dishwar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 37

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 37

Click Here To Read/Download Order