9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... biscuits (valued approximately at Rs. 6.5 crores) was effected by the customs authorities on the next day, February 25, 1989 in Kannur District. 4.The Government of India had evolved a scheme for grant of reward to informers and government servants in the case of seizures, evasion of payment of duty and the like detected under the provisions of the Customs Act. The Central Excises and Salt Act, the Gold Control Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The quantum of reward as well as the eligibility criteria are laid down in the guidelines, a copy of which is Ext. P 1. It is the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the reward in respect of the aforesaid seizure that form the bone of contention in this writ petition. To cut a long story short, the petitioner's claim for reward was rejected by the Government of India by their communications Exts. P 5, and P 6 and P 7 in the view that officers higher in rank than Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise and officers of equivalent rank in other departments are not eligible for reward. The petitioner thus lost his claim, though he had spearheaded and masterminded the operations, which resulted in the seizure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fear of creating a commotion. Instead, it kept the house under surveillance and entered the house after dusk. Its occupant Abdurahiman, a coconut trader, led the policemen to the nine jackets concealed under a heap of coconuts. They contained 900 slabs of gold - the biggest ever seizure by the Kerala Police - a part of the consignment landed the previous night. Abdurahiman then directed the police team to the city hideout of four young men, from Kasargode and Cannanore districts, who were to have carried part of the gold. It was then that the police traced the kingpin of the smugglers, K.P. Majid of Calicut, who was related to Abdurahiman. But before the police could act on the new leads, the Customs had approached the DIG. The gold, vehicles and five people taken into custody were handed to the Customs. Within a few hours, Customs men intercepted a Contessa car at distant Irikkur in Cannanore district and came up with a haul of 1,600 gold slabs. The car belonged to Ismail, father of one of the young men taken into custody earlier." These facts are not in dispute, but only the eligibility of the petitioner for the reward. 6.The petitioner's case is that despite all this, awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been denied the reward not in exercise of the discretion under clause 4, but only because he was held ineligible for it under Ext. P 1. Therefore it is necessary for me to consider only the question of eligibility and none else. 10.As to who are the persons eligible for the reward is laid down in clause 7 and on its interpretation lies the answer to the question regarding the petitioner's eligibility. It says : "7. To whom reward may be paid : Ordinarily, informers and Government servants (upto the7.1 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 carries of contraband goods etc. Group `A' Officers above the level of Assistant7.2. 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 evas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who fall in group A as under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules aforesaid and not to others. The alleged ineligibility for reward can, on the express terms of clause 7.2, be only for those who are in group A as under these Rules, above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director. The petitioner, a member of an All India Service is not comprehended within the bar created by clause 7.2. 13.I am also of the view that this clause applies only to officers in the concerned department of the Government of India and not to others. The clause does not speak of any equivalent level of officers to Assistant Collector/Assistant Director, in other departments. An Assistant Collector has reference to a functionary exercising power under the Customs Act, the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Gold Control Act, while an Assistant Director is an officer enforcing the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. (These are the four Acts covered by Ext. P 1). Clause 7.2 speaks only of such officers, and not of others in other departments. The level mentioned is the level in the hierarchy in the concerned department, and not elsewhere. No rule of equivalence has been place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er amount was rejected by the proceedings Ext. P 4, on the ground that only a reward of not more than Rs. one lakh could be sanctioned to an individual officer in a single case. This appears to be a wrong premise. There is no such limit prescribed in the guidelines marked Ext. P 1 in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991, which was in force on the relevant date. Such a limit was prescribed only in a subsequent order Ext. P 2 dated April 13, 1989. But that has no application to the case on hand as the seizure was much earlier on February 24, 1989. The matter has therefore be reconsidered on the basis of the guidelines Ext. P 1 in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 uninhibited by anything stated in Ext. P 2. 17.The original petitions are therefore disposed of as follows : O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 is allowed. The proceedings Exts. P 5, P 6 and P 7 are quashed. The petitioner is held eligible for the reward under Ext. P 1. The respondents shall grant the petitioner the reward due to him after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ext. P 1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P No. 11947 of 1991 is allowed to the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
