9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of India, Ministry of Finance on 13.4.1989 to all heads of departments under the Central Board of Excise and Customs in regard to grant of rewards to the government servants and informers. Under Ext. P2, the Government have reviewed the existing policy, procedures and orders contained in Ext. P1. The above two orders were issued by the Government of India with a view to encourage detection of smuggling of gold. The guidelines provide for grant of reward to the informers and government servants. According to these guidelines, 20% of the estimated marked value of the contraband gold seized or Rs. 5,800/- per gold biscuit is the reward to be given to the government servants and another 20% to the informants. 2. In the instant case, a team of police officials of Kerala Police headed by the respondent effected seizure of 900 contraband gold biscuits by their own efforts and information gathered by them in Calicut District on 24-2-1989. They also arrested the person involved in the smuggling. A case was also registered against the accused. While the investigation in the case was progressing, then Additional Collector of Customs, Cochin requested the respondent to handover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that payment of reward to informers and government servants as per the policy and guidelines under Ext. P1 is purely an ex-gratia payment within the absolute discretion of the Central Government and no one is entitled to claim it as a matter of right. It was further submitted that the respondent is not eligible for reward at all as per the reward guidelines contained in Ext. P1. It is also contended that the respondent, being a government servant above the level of group `A', he is not eligible for any reward as per Ext. P1 guidelines. 4. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J., after hearing the above Original Petition, quashed Exts. P5, P6 and P7 orders and directed the Union of India to grant reward due to the respondent after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ext. P1. While coming to the above conclusion, the learned Judge observed thus: "Clause 7.2 shows that group 'A' officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director will not be eligible on the basis of the value of seizure; but Government may consider grant of lump-sum payment etc. in appropriate cases. Therefore, even group `A' officers of the level mentioned, are not totally barred from the reward; the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, is not eligible for reward as provided in clause 7 of Ext. P1 guidelines and hence the finding of the learned Judge that the respondent is entitled for the reward is unwarranted. According to him, there is no scope for such an interpretation in view of the clear and unambiguous language used in Clause 7 of Ext. P1. It is argued further that the respondent was only discharging his duty in directing officers and men of the lower rank to effect seizure of the contraband for which he should not have expected any monetary reward. He would further submit that the grant of the reward is purely an ex-gratia payment within the absolute discretion of the Government of India and, therefore, the learned Judge ought not have held that the rejection of the claim for reward is an unreasonable exercise of discretion and is discriminatory. It is also submitted that the grant of reward is a policy decision of the Government of India and is an ex-gratia payment within the absolute discretion of the Government and, therefore, it does not give a legally enforceable right to anyone and hence the learned Judge should have dismissed the Original Petition on the preliminary ground that the claim is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the exact location of the house of concealment of contraband and the manner to act, gave direction to the leader to keep constant touch through VHF till effecting seizure, kept monitoring the operation through VHF. After seizure gave directions to locate the car CKN 9126 and the individuals who are suspected to have transported the contraband goods in the said house. Arranged safe custody of the contraband goods and the accused. Kept liaison with the Customs regarding handing over the seized goods, case records and the accused." Ext. P5 is the reply by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to Ext. P4. A perusal of Ext. P5 would show that the said order does not contain any reason for rejection of the reward to the respondent. Ext. P6 is another order by the Government of India dated 6-10-1989 issued to the respondent stating that the government was not able to accede to his request for grant of reward. Ext. P7 is yet another communication issued by the Government of India dated 26-3-1990 stating that in terms of the existing reward policy, officers higher than in rank of the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise and officers of equivalent rank in the other dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. Clause 7, which is the relevant clause in our context, deals with "to whom reward may be paid". Clauses 7.1 and 7.2 read thus: "7.1. Ordinarily, informers and government servants (upto the level of group 'A' Superintendent/Assistant Collectors of Customs and Central Excise/Assistant Directors) will be eligible for reward depending on the contribution made by them as a team as well as individually with regard to the collection of intelligence, surveillance, effecting of seizure etc. Due credit should be given to the staff employed on investigation of persons involved other than carriers of contraband goods etc. 7.2. Group `A' Officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director will not be eligible for reward on the basis of value of seizure etc. However, in appropriate cases, government may consider in consultation with CCA/DCRI/Director, Anti evasion, the grant of lump-sum payment/advance increment and/or recognition, in any other manner of the services rendered by them for which purpose the heads of the Department should forward their recommendations to the aforementioned officers with a copy to the Ministry. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raordinary one as from the very beginning he had played an important part till the seizure was effected exposing himself to the grave risk of attack by the smugglers and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the reward should be given to him also. Our attention was also drawn to P. No. R-13011/5/89-AD.V. of the Department of Revenue which limits the total reward to Rs. 1 lakh per seizure and to a total limit of Rs. 10 lakhs in one's career. The said circular was issued in April 1989 and the seizure in the present case was effected in February 1989. As such, the said circular, in our view, cannot be given retrospective effect. This apart, Clause 7.2 of Ext. P1 provides for lump sum payment in respect of officers above the rank of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Directors and the lump sum grant will be as recommended by the Head of the Department. In this case, the Head of the Department, after furnishing details of the role played by each official, had also recommended full reward to the respondent. If the recommendation of the Head of the Department cannot be considered as provided for in the guidelines for giving full reward to the respondent, who is above the rank of Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the opinion that the reward now granted by the above communication is not the proper one which could be sanctioned to the respondent on the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the reward proposal by the Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence would also reveal that the respondent, being a group `A' officer above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director, is not eligible for reward on the basis of value of the seizure. Since he had played a vital role, the proposal was made requesting the government to consider grant of lump-sum reward to him. The Director General recommended a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as lump-sum reward subject to the approval by the Board and also of the final outcome of the present Writ Appeal filed by the appellant. We have also perused the minutes of the Reward Committee meeting on 7-4-1995. It is stated in paragraph 8 that as far as the claim of the respondent for payment of reward to him is concerned, the Committee observed that he had played a vital role in this case, inasmuch as he had collected information from his source and directed his team of Police Officers to search the premises which led to the recovery of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
