2014 (1) TMI 13 - HC - Customs

Petition Dismissed: Committee's Decision Upheld

The court dismissed the petition, finding that the Reward Committee had duly considered the petitioner's case in compliance with the previous court order. ... Reward to informer being government servants - Reward for seizures made or evasion of duty detection - Reward of 20% of the value of the contraband article detected - Held that:- Reward is purely an ex gratia payment which, subject to guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In determining the rewards which may be granted, the authority competent to grant reward will keep specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or their association, etc.; the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in accruing the information, the extent to which the vigilance on the staff led to the seizures, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. Ordinarily, informers and Government servants up to the level of Group ‘A’ Superintendents/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. Government servant posted on the vital point to perform his duty is expected to do with utmost zeal and valor. He is also expected to be vigilant and take all necessary steps for preventing the crime or in apprehending the criminals. It is only in extraordinary circumstances and events that the ex gratia payment of reward is contemplated when the Government servant fall under any of those set out parameters. Mere recommendation also does not give the petitioner any right to receive the reward. The petitioner also has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the Committee has disregarded the relevant material or has considered the irrelevant details or has done any procedural lapse necessitating any interference. This Court chooses not to examine the case of the petitioner on merit except to satisfy of its due consideration as it is not expected to delve into that aspect and it is also expected not to trade on exclusive domain of Committee by applying those parameters to the case of the petitioner and decide the case of petitioner on merit further. What is vital and crucial is to satisfy ourselves that the directions of this Court have been duly complied with and his case is considered by the Committee - Decided against appellants. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to reward under government policy for seizure of contraband.2. Compliance with previous court orders.3. Discrimination and violation of Article 14.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Reward under Government Policy for Seizure of Contraband:The petitioner, a retired police officer, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to comply with a previous court order directing them to consider his eligibility for a reward under the government policy for the seizure of contraband. The policy, issued by the Ministry of Finance, provides for rewards up to 20% of the value of seized contraband to informers and government servants. The petitioner argued that he was instrumental in the seizure of 3,400 tolas of gold and thus entitled to a reward. However, the policy specifies that rewards are ex gratia payments and not a matter of right, subject to the discretion of the competent authority. The Reward Committee had previously denied the petitioner's reward, stating he did not perform any specific task warranting an extraordinary reward.2. Compliance with Previous Court Orders:The petitioner had earlier approached the court in Special Civil Application No. 6554 of 1997, where the court directed the respondents to reconsider his case. The respondents claimed compliance with this order, stating that the Reward Committee reconsidered the case but found no extraordinary or exemplary efforts by the petitioner to justify the reward. The court noted that the Committee had duly considered the petitioner's case as per the guidelines and found no procedural lapses or arbitrary exercise of discretion.3. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:The petitioner alleged discrimination, arguing that other officers involved in the same operation were rewarded while he was not. The court examined whether the Committee's decision was arbitrary or discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the Committee had applied the policy guidelines uniformly and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any intelligent differentia or procedural lapses in the Committee's decision-making process. The court emphasized that the reward is an ex gratia payment and not a right, and the petitioner did not establish any legally enforceable right to claim the reward.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner's case had been duly considered by the Reward Committee in compliance with the previous court order. The court found no evidence of wrongful exercise of discretion or discrimination by the Committee. The petitioner failed to establish any violation of Article 14 or any procedural lapses that would necessitate judicial intervention. The court reiterated that the reward is an ex gratia payment and not a matter of right, and the Committee's decision was within the bounds of the policy guidelines.