Appeal Cannot Become a Tool to Enhance Punishment Without Notice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arbitrary Reduction of Policeman’s Rank

“Natural Justice Is Not a Ritual but a Right — No Authority Can Enhance Punishment Without Affording a Hearing” - In a major rebuke to arbitrary disciplinary actions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Punjab Government’s order that had reduced a police officer’s rank without issuing a notice or giving an opportunity of hearing.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while restoring the original lighter punishment, emphasized: “The appellate authority cannot enhance the punishment without issuing a show cause notice — natural justice demands that no man shall be condemned unheard.”
The Court’s verdict restored not only the officer’s rightful rank but also reaffirmed the sanctity of procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.

From Appeal for Leniency to Abrupt Demotion: How the State Violated Basic Fairness
The petitioner, Sham Kumar, had served the Punjab Police since 1989, rising to the local rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. An incident in 2020, where he lawfully stopped a minor riding a two-wheeler and found objectionable material, led to departmental proceedings after the minor tragically committed suicide a few days later.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of forfeiture of two increments. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the appellate authority — not anticipating that his punishment would be arbitrarily enhanced to reduction to Constable without even a whisper of prior notice.
Justice Bansal minced no words: “The petitioner sought relief against a minor penalty, not an escalation of punishment — the Home Secretary, without issuing notice, acted in violation of the basic principles of natural justice.”

Power of Review Exists, But Must Be Exercised Lawfully: Court Deciphers Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules
The State defended its action citing Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, arguing that it allowed reviewing and enhancing punishments.

The Court, however, made it clear: “Rule 16.28(3) mandates that before enhancing punishment, the authority must issue a show cause notice and offer a hearing — absence of this renders the entire action void.”

Justice Bansal elaborated: “Power to review cannot override the duty to act fairly — enhancement of penalty is permissible only after strict compliance with procedural safeguards.”
Thus, the Court rejected the State’s claim that mere invocation of the Rule without following its mandate could save the illegal action.

Enhancement Must Be Based on Cogent Grounds, Not Administrative Caprice
The High Court went further to address the merits of the case, holding that: “The petitioner performed his duty lawfully — holding him responsible for a tragic suicide, without any proven misconduct, cannot justify a punishment as drastic as reduction in rank.”

The Court warned: “If lawful acts done in the course of duty are punished this harshly, police officers would be paralysed in the honest execution of their responsibilities.”
The judgment made it clear that proportionality and fairness must guide any disciplinary action — not administrative overreach or moral panic.

Allowing the writ petition, Justice Jagmohan Bansal decisively quashed the Home Secretary’s order dated 28.01.2025 and restored the earlier punishment imposed by the Director General of Police.

The Court’s closing words sent a powerful message: “The liberty and career of a government servant cannot be sacrificed at the altar of arbitrary action — enhancement of punishment must strictly comply with the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards.”

This ruling stands as a strong reaffirmation that due process is the lifeblood of lawful administration — a timely and important reminder for all disciplinary authorities.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025