Jurisdictional Limits on Enhancing Punishment on Appeal under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision in Sham Kumar v. State of Punjab & Others, decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on April 2, 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:044748). In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a police officer then holding substantive rank of Head Constable and local rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, challenged an order of the Home Secretary dated January 28, 2025 which enhanced his disciplinary punishment—from forfeiture of two increments to reduction in rank—without prior notice. Key issues include: (i) whether the Government, exercising appellate or review jurisdiction under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (“PPR”), may enhance punishment; and (ii) if so, whether procedural safeguards (such as a show-cause notice) are mandatory.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed Sham Kumar’s writ petition, set aside the impugned order of January 28, 2025, and restored the earlier decision of the Director General of Police (DGP). The Court held that:

Absence of Appellate Power to Enhance Punishment: In adjudicating an appeal, the Government lacked specific statutory authority to substitute the punishment awarded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities below.
Limits of Review under Rule 16.28: Even under Rule 16.28 PPR—which allows the State Government to review subordinate awards—the power to enhance punishment can be exercised only after issuing a show-cause notice and granting an opportunity of hearing, which did not occur here.
Merits: On merits, reduction in rank was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of checking a minor’s vehicle storage and finding condoms, especially where no nexus existed between the officer’s act and the tragic outcome.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

M/s Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab (2019 (20) GSTL 349)
The Division Bench held that an appellate authority cannot enhance penalty in the absence of express statutory power. By analogy, the Punjab Excise Act did not confer on its appellate body a power to levy a harsher penalty than that imposed in the original order.
Customs Act, 1962, Sections 128 & 128-A
These provisions were cited by the Division Bench in Nirvair Singh as illustrations where the legislature expressly empowered appellate bodies to enhance penalties, subject to notice and hearing. Their absence in the Punjab Excise Act—and by extension, in the appeal provision under PPR—underscored the limitation.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on two pillars:

Statutory Construction of Rule 16.28 PPR:
Rule 16.28(1) empowers the State Government to review subordinate disciplinary awards, including enhancement, but Rule 16.28(3) mandates that “officers propose to enhance an award” must first give the delinquent an opportunity to show cause. The Home Secretary’s impugned order was passed in the appellate stream without following this mandatory procedure.
Appellate vs. Review Jurisdiction:
The Home Secretary purported to exercise appellate jurisdiction (appeal preferred by the petitioner), but appellate rules do not confer power to increase punishment. A reviewing authority under Rule 16.28 is distinct from an appellate authority, and its powers are circumscribed by procedural safeguards.

3.3. Impact

The judgment clarifies and cements three important principles in disciplinary jurisprudence:

Non-Enhancement in Appeal: Appellate bodies cannot impose greater punishment than that awarded by the original authority, unless a statute expressly authorizes such enhancement.
Mandatory Procedural Safeguards in Review: Even where review and enhancement are authorized (e.g., Rule 16.28), authorities must issue show-cause notices and afford hearings before raising penalties.
Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings: The decision reinforces that administrative punishment must follow both substantive and procedural fairness, safeguarding the rights of public servants.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Appellate Authority vs. Reviewing Authority: An appellate authority re-examines a decision on appeal, while a reviewing authority (under a review rule) can revisit and modify decisions (confirm, enhance, annul) independent of an appeal. Each function is governed by its own rules.
Show-Cause Notice: A procedural document requiring an individual to explain or justify why a proposed action (e.g., enhancement of punishment) should not be taken against them.
Forfeiture of Increments: A disciplinary penalty reducing the officer’s pay scale by one or more increments, often permanently, without altering rank.

5. Conclusion

Sham Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others establishes a clear limitation on the enhancement of disciplinary punishments during appeal proceedings in the absence of explicit statutory authority. It also underscores the mandatory requirement of procedural fairness—specifically, the issuance of a show-cause notice when exercising review powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules. This precedent will guide police departments and other disciplinary bodies to respect both the letter and spirit of procedural safeguards, ensuring that public servants are not subjected to arbitrary escalation of penalties.