The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the enhanced punishment given to a Punjab Police officer, Sham Kumar, who was accused of misconduct after stopping a minor’s bike during duty. The case took a tragic turn when the minor, found carrying condoms, died by suicide days later after being scolded by his father.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, delivering the verdict, emphasized the officer was only performing his duty and couldn’t be held responsible for the unfortunate incident that followed.
“The petitioner had not illegally or unofficially detained the vehicle of a minor child. It was the father who scolded him. The petitioner cannot be held responsible to the extent that his rank is reduced,” observed the Court.
Background
Sham Kumar, who joined Punjab Police in 1989, was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on local rank in 2020. During duty, he stopped a minor riding a two-wheeler. Upon checking, two condoms were found. The boy’s father was called and scolded him in front of the officer. Tragically, the minor died by suicide a few days later.
Following this, departmental proceedings were initiated, and Kumar was initially punished with forfeiture of two increments. However, on his appeal, the Home Secretary — without issuing any notice or hearing — enhanced the punishment to a reduction in rank to Constable.
The Court found the Home Secretary’s action flawed on several grounds:
“Punishment can be enhanced only after issuing a show cause notice and allowing a fair hearing,” noted Justice Bansal, citing Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
While the State argued it had the authority under Rule 16.28 to enhance punishment, the Court clarified that such a review must be carried out through a separate process, not while adjudicating an appeal.
“Appellate Authority cannot enhance penalty unless specifically empowered by statute,” the Court reaffirmed, citing a 2019 judgment (M/s Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab).
The Court highlighted the absence of any notice or due process before the enhancement, thus holding the decision illegal and unjustified.
“If findings of Home Secretary are upheld, no police official would be able to take action against erring persons,” the Court remarked sharply.
The High Court set aside the order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the Home Secretary, and restored the earlier order of the Director General of Police (DGP), which had imposed the lesser punishment of forfeiture of two increments.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed,” concluded the judgment.
In the light of the above, the Court set aside the Impugned order and restored the order of DGP.
Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Title: Sham Kumar v. State of Punjab and others
