1999 (1) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the respondent to the reward as per Exts. P1 and P2 guidelines.
2. Applicability of Clause 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext. P1 to officers above the rank of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Directors.
3. Discretionary nature of the reward as an ex-gratia payment.
4. Equivalence and applicability of the guidelines to officers from other departments.
5. Validity of the rejection of the respondent's claim for the reward.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the respondent to the reward as per Exts. P1 and P2 guidelines:
The respondent, an IPS officer, led a team that seized 900 contraband gold biscuits and arrested the smugglers. Despite his significant role, his request for a reward was denied based on the guidelines under Ext. P1, which state that officers above the rank of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Directors are not eligible for rewards. The respondent argued that he was entitled to the reward as per the guidelines indicated in Exts. P1 and P2, which provide for a reward of 20% of the estimated market value of the seized contraband gold.

2. Applicability of Clause 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext. P1 to officers above the rank of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Directors:
Clause 7.2 of Ext. P1 specifies that Group 'A' officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director are not eligible for rewards based on the value of the seizure. However, the clause also allows for the possibility of a lump-sum payment or other forms of recognition in appropriate cases. The learned Judge noted that this clause does not entirely bar higher-ranking officers from receiving rewards but suggests that the reward may take a different form.

3. Discretionary nature of the reward as an ex-gratia payment:
The Assistant Collector (Legal) argued that the reward is an ex-gratia payment within the absolute discretion of the Central Government and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Clause 4.1 of Ext. P1 supports this by stating that the reward is subject to guidelines and the discretion of the competent authority. However, the learned Judge emphasized that while the reward is discretionary, it must be exercised reasonably and consistently for all eligible individuals.

4. Equivalence and applicability of the guidelines to officers from other departments:
The learned Judge observed that Clause 7.2 applies only to officers of the concerned department of the Government of India and not to officers from other departments. The guidelines do not mention equivalent levels of officers in other departments, and no rule of equivalence was presented to show the applicable categories in other departments. Therefore, the restriction should not apply to the respondent, who is from the State Police.

5. Validity of the rejection of the respondent's claim for the reward:
The rejection of the respondent's claim for the reward was based on the assumption that officers higher in rank than Assistant Collectors are not eligible for rewards. The learned Judge found this assumption unwarranted and held that the respondent is entitled to a reward based on his significant role in the seizure operation. The Judge quashed the orders (Exts. P5, P6, and P7) that denied the reward and directed the Union of India to grant the reward to the respondent.

Conclusion:
The High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge, quashing the orders denying the reward and directing the appellant to grant the reward to the respondent in accordance with Ext. P1. The Court emphasized that the reward should be granted based on the respondent's significant contribution to the seizure operation, and the discretionary nature of the reward does not justify arbitrary denial. The appellant was ordered to fix the quantum of the reward and make the payment within two months, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The writ appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.