Mark Gilmore, former chief constable of the West Yorkshire force, complained that West Yorkshire police commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson had unfairly failed to decide whether he had a ''case to answer'' after misconduct allegations were made.
He asked a judge to order Mr Burns-Williamson to ''make a case-to-answer decision''.
Mr Burns-Williamson said Mr Gilmore's claim was ''disingenuous''.
Mr Justice Supperstone, who recently analysed rival arguments at a High Court hearing in London, dismissed his claim on Tuesday.
Mr Gilmore's retirement as chief constable was announced during the summer of 2016.
He had been suspended in 2014 following allegations about his relationship with a car dealership.
Jeremy Johnson QC, who represented Mr Gilmore, had told the judge that a police watchdog and prosecutors found ''no evidence of wrongdoing'' following separate inquiries.
Mr Johnson said all Mr Gilmore was asking was for Mr Burns-Williamson to make a decision on the investigation he initiated.
John Beggs QC, who represented Mr Burns-Williamson, said: ''But for (his) decision to retire he would have received the decision.
''Further, he knew what the decision would be, which is precisely why he retired when he did, taking his pension and avoiding any further investigation or public misconduct hearing.
''His claim is disingenuous.''
Mr Justice Supperstone said he had concluded that Mr Burns-Williamson was "under no obligation to made a case-to-answer determination".