9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for reward under the Government of India's scheme for seizure of contraband. 2. Interpretation of guidelines regarding the eligibility for rewards. 3. Discretion in granting rewards. 4. Classification of officers and applicability of guidelines. 5. Precedents of rewards to officers of All India Services. 6. Quantum of reward to be granted. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for reward under the Government of India's scheme for seizure of contraband The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode, was involved in the seizure of 900 contraband gold biscuits and further seizure of 1596 gold biscuits by customs authorities. The petitioner's claim for a reward was rejected by the Government of India based on the guidelines that officers higher in rank than Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise are not eligible for rewards. The petitioner's role in the seizure was pivotal and undisputed, but his eligibility for the reward was contested based on the guidelines. Issue 2: Interpretation of guidelines regarding the eligibility for rewards The guidelines (Ext. P 1) specify that rewards are ex gratia payments granted at the discretion of the competent authority but must be exercised reasonably and uniformly. Clause 7.1 of Ext. P 1 states that informers and government servants up to the level of Group 'A' Superintendent/Assistant Collectors of Customs and Central Excise/Assistant Directors are eligible for rewards. Clause 7.2 states that Group 'A' officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director are not eligible for rewards based on the value of the seizure but may be considered for lump-sum payments or other forms of recognition. Issue 3: Discretion in granting rewards The court emphasized that discretion in granting rewards must be exercised reasonably and uniformly. The fact that rewards are ex gratia does not imply arbitrary denial if the person is otherwise eligible under the guidelines. The petitioner's claim was denied not based on discretion but on the interpretation of the guidelines, which the court found erroneous. Issue 4: Classification of officers and applicability of guidelines The petitioner, being a member of the Indian Police Service (an All India Service), argued that he was not classified into groups under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which do not apply to All India Services. Therefore, the ineligibility for rewards under Clause 7.2 of Ext. P 1 did not apply to him. The court agreed, stating that the classification into groups A, B, C, and D exists only for Central Civil Services and not for All India Services. Issue 5: Precedents of rewards to officers of All India Services The court noted that rewards had been granted to members of All India Services in similar cases, such as the seizure under the Customs Act in the Lakshadweep Islands. The Collector-cum-Development Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police of Lakshadweep, both All India Service officers, were rewarded despite being above the level of officers mentioned in Clause 7.2 of Ext. P 1. This precedent supported the petitioner's eligibility for the reward. Issue 6: Quantum of reward to be granted The court found that the petitioner's claim for a larger reward was based on an erroneous premise that there was a limit of Rs. one lakh per individual officer, which was not prescribed in the guidelines (Ext. P 1) in force at the time of the seizure. The subsequent order (Ext. P 2) dated April 13, 1989, which prescribed such a limit, did not apply as the seizure occurred earlier on February 24, 1989. The matter was to be reconsidered based on the guidelines in force at the time of the seizure. Judgments: O.P. No. 12775 of 1991: The court quashed Exts. P 5, P 6, and P 7, holding the petitioner eligible for the reward under Ext. P 1. The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the reward due to him after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ext. P 1 within four months. O.P No. 11947 of 1991: The court quashed Ext. P 4 and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation (Ext. P 3) afresh and pass orders within four months. There was no order as to costs.
|
