UNION OF INDIA Vs. R PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 and 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 therefore 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 a 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 lacs was said to have been sanctioned to 163 officers of customs as well as police department.

(3.) THE learned additional solicitor general appearing for the appellant contended that being a pure ex gratia payment, it should be strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the order itself and if the claimant, in any case, does not satisfy the stipulations therein, the department not only can, in appropriate cases, consider such claims for any lump sum reward but not at the rates specified to the eligible class or category of claimants, on the basis of the value of seized goods. It was also urged that departmental officers of other departments such as police, B.S.F. and coast guards etc. are envisaged under the guidelines for being granted such rewards subject to the restrictions in Clause 7-1 and the directions issued to the contrary cannot be justified in law and being a matter pertaining to the sphere of policy, it cannot be modulated, modified or restructured so as to affect the very basis of the orders of the government. THE provisions contained in the amendment made on 13.4.89 was also urged to apply to the case. THE learned senior counsel for the respondent, while adopting the reasoning of the High Court, reiterated that the construction placed by the High Court and the reasons assigned therefore are not only reasonable but constitute just and reasonable method of implementation keeping into account the avowed purpose and object underlying the very scheme and consequently, no interference is called for.