Back
2003(6) Supreme 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
R. Padmanabhan -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2769 of 1999
Decided on 13-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P. Krishnamoothy, Sr. Advocate, Romy Chacko and Rajiv Mehta, Advocates.
Held : The decision of the Division Bench rendered in affirmance of the one rendered by the Single Bench suffer from a serious infirmity in not adverting properly to the basics and fundamentals of the Scheme for Rewards and in assuming to the contra that when an informer could be given liberally, the Government servant also, must be shown the same consideration, whereas a careful scanning through may go to show that an Informant is placed on a different pedestal than a Government servant. The rewards are also to be and can be "upto 20%" or as the case may be and not that invariably it must be as a rule 20% of the estimated market value. Reward is purely an ex gratia payment, subject to the Guidelines on the discretion of the competent authority, though it cannot arbitrarily be denied or refused at whim or fancy and it should specifically conform to and must be shown to fall or claimed within the four corners of the Scheme and not by any deviation or modulation of the Scheme, as the Courts think it should be and if it cannot come strictly within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be dealt with only under the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward. That apart, being ex gratia, no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the Guidelines and Policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the Scheme itself. (Para 8)
Further held : For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to accord approval to the decision of the High Court. The judgment under challenge is, therefore, set aside. On the facts of the case, it is found that on 4.7.1995, after the decision of the learned Single Judge, a High Level Committee seems to have considered the claims of the respondent for reward and recommended a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs, subject to the final decision of the High Court, and kept in abeyance the actual disbursal of the sum. In the light of all these and instead of relegating the matter for fresh review, by the authorities in the Government, involving further delay also, we would instead direct the payment of a reward of Rs.2.50 lakhs, treating the same as a special case and the delay already involved and the decision said to have been taken - in order to give a quietus to the problem. The sum directed by this order may be disbursed within a period of sixty days from this date without fail. The appeal shall stand allowed to the extent indicated above and subject to the payment ordered above. The respondent has been driven to unnecessary litigation by completely denying anything initially for all his efforts and had to face proceedings in this Court also. The appellant will pay Rs.15,000/- for the costs of the respondent, while bearing their own costs. (Para 10)
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellant, Union of India, which lost before the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 and before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 1077 of 1994, has filed this appeal.
2. The respondent, an IPS Officer, who, at the relevant point of time, was serving as the DIG of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode, which comprised in his area of operation Revenue Districts of Kasargode, Cannanore, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Wayanad and Malappuram. The appellant-Government not only authorized the State Police authorities to effect seizure and investigation of cases under the Central Excise & Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible to assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as Government servants and issued Guidelines therefor in the Notification dated 30.3.1985; this was said to have been followed by certain amendments in the matter of ceiling imposed, as to the quantum, by Notification dated 13.4.1989. The respondent, claimed to have an informant in, the matter in question, worked out the information, supervised and executed an operation, which resulted in the seizure of 900 gold biscuits valued approximately at Rs.3.5 crores, which were concealed in an House. He also was said to have monitored the operation after seizure and on the basis of the action taken by the authorities of the Customs Department thereon it was possible for the said authorities to seize another 1600 gold biscuits from Irikkur in Cannanore District. A reward of Rs.11.28 lakhs was said to have been sanctioned to 163 Officers of Customs as well as Police Department.
3. While so, though the claim of the respondent was also considered as one responsible for the subject seizure, no sanction was made in his favour for the reason that he was holding a rank considered higher than that of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director and consequently held not eligible for the reward in terms of clause 7.1. of the Notification dated 30.3.1985. After finding not successful in his representation to the higher authorities, as well in the Government of India, O.P. No.12775 of 1991 was filed in the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the proceedings rejecting his claim and consequently direct the appellant to sanction and pay the reward to the respondent herein, in accordance with the scales mentioned and declare that he was entitled to the reward on the basis of the Guidelines indicated. Overruling the objections of the appellant arrayed as respondent before the High Court, the learned Single Judge, by his Order dated 19.7.1994, directed the Department to consider the claims of the respondent herein on merits and fix the quantum of reward taking into account the role played in the operations. The learned Judge was of the view that the exclusionary rule in clause 7.2. of the Guidelines was intended to exclude, if at all, only the officers above the level mentioned in the Departments specified, from being rewarded on the basis of the value of the seizure and not others. As for the amendment issued in April 1989, limiting the total reward to Rs.1 lakh per seizure and a total limit of Rs.10 lakhs in ones career, the High Court was of the view that the seizure in the case having been made on 24.12.1989, cannot have retrospective effect and, therefore, not relevant.
4. Aggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter on appeal in W.A. No. 1077 of 1994 and the Division Bench also confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the appellant to grant the reward to the respondent after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ex.P.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the copy
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
