JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) whereby respondent has enhanced punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 19.05.1989. He, from time to time, came to be promoted. In 2020, he was holding local rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He, while posted at Police Post Sun City Turn, Police Station Mohkampura, District Amritsar, in the course of his official duty stopped one vehicle which was being driven by a minor. He checked storage box of the two-wheeler and found two condoms. Father of the minor child reached there and scolded his son. After 2-3 days, child committed suicide. The Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner which culminated in forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. He further preferred appeal before the Government which came up for consideration before Home Secretary. The petitioner was seeking setting aside of forfeiture of two increments, however, Home Secretary without issuing him any notice, vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025 enhanced punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority. The punishment of forfeiture of two increments has been substituted by reduction in rank. He has been reduced to rank of Constable. It is apt to mention here that at the time of passing impugned order, the petitioner was holding substantive rank of Head Constable and local rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.

3. Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate submits that it was appeal of the petitioner before Government, thus, there was no occasion to enhance the quantum of punishment. There is no provision which empowers the Government to enhance punishment while adjudicating an appeal. The petitioner was not even served show cause notice, thus, impugned order is bad in the eye of law. He would be satisfied if impugned order is set aside and order of Appellate Authority-Director General of Police, Punjab (for short 'DGP') is restored.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

6. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final adjudication.

7. Learned State counsel submits that State Government has power to review order of DGP under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'PPR'). The Home Secretary has passed impugned order while exercising power under Rule 16.28 of PPR. There is power to enhance punishment awarded by authorities below. This power could be exercised even while adjudicating appeal of the petitioner.

8. On being confronted with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16.28 of PPR, learned State counsel conceded that impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner proposing higher punishment.

9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

10. The State Government in terms of Rule 16.28 of PPR has power to call for the records and review the awards made by Inspector General of Police (for short 'IGP') or any other authority subordinate to him. As conceded by both sides, at present, Head of Police Force is DGP, thus, expression IGP used in PPR needs to be substituted with DGP. The Reviewing Authority has power to enhance the punishment awarded by Authorities below. For ready reference, Rule 16.28 of PPR is reproduced as below: -

'16.28. Powers to review proceedings.- (1) The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. The State Government may also call for the records and review the awards made by the inspector General of Police Pu