{"id":185417,"date":"2003-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003"},"modified":"2016-08-26T19:43:30","modified_gmt":"2016-08-26T14:13:30","slug":"union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Doraiswamy Raju.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2769 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India\t\t\t\t                               \n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nR. Padmanabhan\t\t                                               \n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/08\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J.:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant, Union of India, which lost before the learned Single <\/p>\n
Judge in O.P. No.12775 of 1991 and before the Division Bench of the Kerala <\/p>\n
High Court in W.A. No.1077 of 1994, has filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent, an IPS Officer, who, at the relevant point of time, was <\/p>\n
serving as the DIG of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode, which comprised in <\/p>\n
his area of operation Revenue Districts of Kasargode, Cannanore, Kozhikode, <\/p>\n
Palakkad, Wayanad and Malappuram.  The appellant-Government not only <\/p>\n
authorized the State Police authorities to effect seizure and investigation of <\/p>\n
cases under the Central Excise & Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order <\/p>\n
and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and other <\/p>\n
articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of the <\/p>\n
country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of <\/p>\n
detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible to <\/p>\n
assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as <\/p>\n
Government servants and issued Guidelines therefor in the Notification dated <\/p>\n
30.3.1985; this was said to have been followed by certain amendments in the <\/p>\n
matter of ceiling imposed, as to the quantum, by Notification dated 13.4.1989.  <\/p>\n
The respondent, claimed to have an informant in the matter in question, <\/p>\n
worked out the information, supervised and executed an operation, which <\/p>\n
resulted in the seizure of 900 gold biscuits valued approximately at Rs.3.5 <\/p>\n
crores, which were concealed in an House.  He also was said to have <\/p>\n
monitored the operation after seizure and on the basis of the action taken by <\/p>\n
the authorities of the Customs Department thereon it was possible for the said <\/p>\n
authorities to seize another 1600 gold biscuits from Irikkur in Cannanore <\/p>\n
District.  A reward of Rs.11.28 lakhs was said to have been sanctioned to 163 <\/p>\n
Officers of Customs as well as Police Department.<\/p>\n
\tWhile so, though the claim of the respondent was also considered as <\/p>\n
one responsible for the subject seizure, no sanction was made in his favour <\/p>\n
for the reason that he was holding a rank considered higher than that of <\/p>\n
Assistant Collector\/Assistant Director and consequently held not eligible for <\/p>\n
the reward in terms of clause 7.1. of the Notification dated 30.3.1985.   After <\/p>\n
finding not successful in his representation to the higher authorities, as well in <\/p>\n
the Government of India, O.P. No.12775 of 1991 was filed in the High Court, <\/p>\n
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the proceedings <\/p>\n
rejecting his claim and consequently direct the appellant to sanction and pay <\/p>\n
the reward to the respondent herein, in accordance with the scales mentioned <\/p>\n
and declare that he was entitled to the reward on the basis of the Guidelines <\/p>\n
indicated.  Overruling the objections of the appellant arrayed as respondent <\/p>\n
before the High Court, the learned Single Judge, by his Order dated <\/p>\n
19.7.1994, directed the Department to consider the claims of the respondent <\/p>\n
herein on merits and fix the quantum of reward taking into account the role <\/p>\n
played in the operations.  The learned Judge was of the view that the <\/p>\n
exclusionary rule in clause 7.2. of the Guidelines was intended to exclude, if <\/p>\n
at all, only the officers above the level mentioned in the Departments <\/p>\n
specified, from being rewarded on the basis of the value of the seizure and <\/p>\n
not others.  As for the amendment issued in April 1989, limiting the total <\/p>\n
reward to Rs.1 lakh per seizure and a total limit of Rs.10 lakhs in ones career, <\/p>\n
the High Court was of the view that the seizure in the case having been made <\/p>\n
on 24.12.1989, cannot have retrospective effect and, therefore, not relevant.       <\/p>\n
\tAggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter on appeal in W.A. <\/p>\n
No.1077 of 1994 and the Division Bench also confirmed the order of the <\/p>\n
learned Single Judge and directed the appellant to grant the reward to the <\/p>\n
respondent after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ex.P.1 within two <\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and that on failing to <\/p>\n
do so or paying the same within a month from the date of its order, the <\/p>\n
amount shall carry interest at 15% from the date of its due till payment.  <\/p>\n
Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant <\/p>\n
contended that being a pure ex gratia payment, it should be strictly in <\/p>\n
accordance with the stipulations contained in the order itself and if the <\/p>\n
claimant, in any case, does not satisfy the stipulations therein, the <\/p>\n
Department not only can, in appropriate cases, consider such claims for any <\/p>\n
lump sum reward but not at the rates specified to the eligible class or <\/p>\n
category of claimants, on the basis of the value of seized goods.  It was also <\/p>\n
urged that departmental officers of other departments such as Police, B.S.F. <\/p>\n
and Coast Guards etc. are envisaged under the Guidelines for being granted <\/p>\n
such rewards subject to the restrictions in Clause 7-1 and the directions <\/p>\n
issued to the contrary cannot be justified in law and being a matter pertaining <\/p>\n
to the sphere of policy, it cannot be modulated, modified or restructured so as <\/p>\n
to affect the very basis of the orders of the Government.  The provisions <\/p>\n
contained in the amendment made on 13.4.89 was also urged to apply to the <\/p>\n
case.  The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, while adopting the <\/p>\n
reasoning of the High Court, reiterated that the construction placed by the <\/p>\n
High Court and the reasons assigned therefor are not only reasonable but <\/p>\n
constitute just and reasonable method of implementation keeping into <\/p>\n
account the avowed purpose and object underlying the very Scheme and <\/p>\n
consequently, no interference is called for. <\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel <\/p>\n
appearing on either side.  It is not only useful but necessary to advert to the <\/p>\n
relevant portions of the Notification dated 30.3.1985 laying down the <\/p>\n
Guidelines for the reward, since the High Court, learned Single Judge and the <\/p>\n
Division Bench, seem to have dealt with the claims of parties purely on the <\/p>\n
basis of clause 7 without noticing the other relevant and essential provisions, <\/p>\n
apparently and may be on account of the fact that their attention was not <\/p>\n
properly drawn by the appellant-Government, at that point of time.  The <\/p>\n
relevant portions of the Guidelines, necessary for appreciating the <\/p>\n
contentions on either side, are as hereunder:-<\/p>\n
“The Government have reviewed the existing policy, <\/p>\n
procedure and orders in respect of grant of rewards to <\/p>\n
informers and Government servants in case of seizures <\/p>\n
made, infringement or evasion on duty, etc., detected <\/p>\n
under the provisions of the following Acts:-<\/p>\n
i)\t           The Customs Act, 1962<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944<\/p>\n
iii)\tThe Gold Control Act, 1968<\/p>\n
iv)\tThe Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973<\/p>\n
2.\tAs a result, the revised guidelines are laid down in <\/p>\n
the succeeding paras,  All provisions\/guidelines <\/p>\n
issued on the subject may be deemed to be <\/p>\n
modified to the extent indicated therein.\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tQUANTUM OF REWARDS<\/p>\n
Seizures of contraband under the Customs Act<\/p>\n
3.1.1\t Informers and government servants will be <\/p>\n
eligible for rewards upto 20% of the estimated <\/p>\n
market value of the contraband goods seized.  In <\/p>\n
respect of gold silver, opium and other narcotic <\/p>\n
drugs etc., the overall ceilings for rewards <\/p>\n
(based on broadly 20% of the value of these <\/p>\n
items, as reckoned by the Government for the <\/p>\n
present) are shown in the Annex.  These would <\/p>\n
be subject to periodically revision in the light of <\/p>\n
price fluctuations about which timely intimations <\/p>\n
should be sent to DGRI every quarter to enable <\/p>\n
him to recommend appropriate revision as and <\/p>\n
when warranted, to the Ministry.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
3.2.1\t Informers and Government servants will be <\/p>\n
eligible for reward upto 20% of the duty, if any, <\/p>\n
sought to be evaded plus 20% of the fine and <\/p>\n
penalty levied\/imposed and realized, provided <\/p>\n
the amount does not exceed 20% of the market <\/p>\n
value of the goods involved.\n<\/p>\n
3.3.\tSeizures made, evasion of duty and other                                                     <\/p>\n
infringement detected under the Central Excise & Salt <\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.3.1\t  \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
3.4\tSeizures under the Gold Control Act and cases of <\/p>\n
other violations detected under the Gold Control <\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.4.1\tIn case of seizures of gold bullion, the over <\/p>\n
all ceiling for rewards to informers and Government <\/p>\n
servants will be as indicated in serial No.1 of the <\/p>\n
Annex.\n<\/p>\n
3.4.2\tIn other cases, whether of seizure of <\/p>\n
articles of gold\/ornaments, or of detection of  <\/p>\n
“shortages”, informers and Government servants will <\/p>\n
be eligible for reward upto 20% of the redemption <\/p>\n
fined and\/or penalty imposed and realized, provided <\/p>\n
the amount does not exceed 20% of the market price <\/p>\n
of the goods involved.\n<\/p>\n
3.5\t Cases of seizures\/violations detected under FERA<\/p>\n
3.5.1\t..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
4.\tREWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A <\/p>\n
MATTER OF ROUTINE.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\t Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which, <\/p>\n
subject to guidelines may be granted on the <\/p>\n
absolute discretion of the authority competent to <\/p>\n
grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone <\/p>\n
as a matter of right.  In determining the rewards <\/p>\n
which may be granted, the authority competent to <\/p>\n
grant reward will keep specificity and accuracy of <\/p>\n
the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, <\/p>\n
the extent and nature of the help rendered by the <\/p>\n
informer, whether information gives clues to <\/p>\n
persons involved in smuggling, or their <\/p>\n
association, etc; the risk involved for the <\/p>\n
Government servants in working out the case, the <\/p>\n
difficulty in accruing the information, the extent to <\/p>\n
which the vigilance on the staff led to the seizures, <\/p>\n
special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, <\/p>\n
etc. and whether, besides the seizure of <\/p>\n
contraband goods, the owners\/organizers\/ <\/p>\n
financiers\/racketeers as well as the carriers have <\/p>\n
been apprehended or not.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tTo Government servants, rewards may ordinarily <\/p>\n
be paid upto 10% of the estimated market value of <\/p>\n
the goods involved (half of the maximum rewards <\/p>\n
indicated in respect of gold, opium and other <\/p>\n
narcotic drugs, etc. in the Annex.).  Rewards in <\/p>\n
excess of this limit, but not exceeding 20% (or as <\/p>\n
in Annex., in respect of gold, silver, narcotics, etc.) <\/p>\n
of the said value, maybe considered in cases <\/p>\n
where the Government servant has exposed <\/p>\n
himself to a great personal hazard or displayed <\/p>\n
exemplary courage, commendable initiative, <\/p>\n
ingenuity or his personal efforts have been mainly <\/p>\n
responsible for the detection of the goods.<\/p>\n
5.\tSTAGE OF PAYMENT OF REWARD<\/p>\n
Payment of advance rewards  <\/p>\n
5.1\tAdvance reward may be paid to informers and <\/p>\n
Government servants upto 50% of the expected final <\/p>\n
reward immediately on seizure in respect of the <\/p>\n
following categories of goods, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
a)\tgold\/silver bullion and goods which are <\/p>\n
notified or specified under the Customs <\/p>\n
Act, 1962;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
b)\tarms and ammunition, explosives;\n<\/p>\n
c)\topium and other narcotic drugs;\n<\/p>\n
d)\tgoods not declared which are seized in <\/p>\n
the Customs area or Customs waters;\n<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
e)\t freely convertible foreign exchange in the <\/p>\n
form of currency notes.\n<\/p>\n
5.2\tIn other (“Smuggling”) cases of seizures of <\/p>\n
contraband goods, advance reward upto 25% of the <\/p>\n
expected final reward may be paid immediately after <\/p>\n
seizure, if the authority competent to sanction <\/p>\n
reward is satisfied that the goods seized are <\/p>\n
reasonably expected to be confiscated on <\/p>\n
adjudication and the order is likely to be sustained in <\/p>\n
appeal\/revision proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
5.3\tIn all other cases, whether of seizure of <\/p>\n
evasion\/infringement detected on the basis of <\/p>\n
documents, 25% of the expected final reward may <\/p>\n
be paid after the issue of a show cause notice <\/p>\n
provided the authority competent to sanction reward <\/p>\n
is satisfied that there is reasonable chance of <\/p>\n
confiscability\/infringement\/evasion, as the case may <\/p>\n
be, being established in adjudication and sustained <\/p>\n
in appeal\/revisionary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
5.4\tIn exceptional cases, the Heads of <\/p>\n
Departments may, having regard to the value of the <\/p>\n
seizures effected and magnitude of the evasion or <\/p>\n
infringement detected and magnitude of the evasion <\/p>\n
or infringement detected and special efforts or <\/p>\n
ingenuity displayed by the officers concerned, <\/p>\n
sanction and announce the grant of suitable rewards <\/p>\n
on the spot to be adjusted against the advance <\/p>\n
reward that may be sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.\tFinal rewards will be paid after adjusting the <\/p>\n
advance rewards, if any, paid in the <\/p>\n
mentioned\/indicated in proceeding paras. <\/p>\n
6.2\tIn respect of the goods described in para <\/p>\n
5.1, the remaining 50% of the reward will be <\/p>\n
sanctioned both to the informers and Government <\/p>\n
servants on adjudication of the case resulting in <\/p>\n
confiscation of the goods.  If, however, the party <\/p>\n
concerned delays adjudication proceedings by <\/p>\n
contesting the imposition of penalty only but the <\/p>\n
confiscation of the goods, the final reward may be <\/p>\n
sanctioned even prior to the conclusion of the <\/p>\n
adjudication proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
6.3\tIn all other cases, 25% of the expected final <\/p>\n
reward may be paid after adjudication resulting in <\/p>\n
confiscation and\/or confirmation of the demand, <\/p>\n
infringement and the remaining 50% may be paid after <\/p>\n
the conclusion of the appeal\/revision proceedings by <\/p>\n
the appropriate authorities (such as Tribunal, FERA <\/p>\n
Board, etc.) resulting in the upholding of confiscation, <\/p>\n
demand, fine penalties, etc. imposed under the <\/p>\n
respective Acts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTO WHOM REWARD MAY BE PAID<\/p>\n
7.1\tOrdinarily, informers and Government servants <\/p>\n
(upto the level of Group `A’ Superintendents\/Assistant <\/p>\n
Collectors of Customs and Central Excise\/Assistant <\/p>\n
Directors will be eligible for reward depending on the <\/p>\n
contribution made by them as a team as well as <\/p>\n
individually with regard to the collection of <\/p>\n
intelligence, surveillance, effecting of seizure etc.  <\/p>\n
Due credit should be given to the staff employed on <\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
7.2\tGroup `A’ officers above the level of Assistant <\/p>\n
Collector\/Assistant Director will not be eligible for <\/p>\n
reward on the basis of value of the seizures, etc.  <\/p>\n
However, in appropriate cases, government may <\/p>\n
consider, in consultation with CCA\/DGRI Director, <\/p>\n
Anti Evasion, the grant of lump-sum <\/p>\n
payment\/advance increments and\/or recognitions, in <\/p>\n
any other manner of the services rendered by them <\/p>\n
for which purpose the Heads of Department should <\/p>\n
forward their recommendation to the aforementioned <\/p>\n
officers with a copy to the Ministry.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
8.1.1\t\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
8.1.2\t\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
8.1.3\tAll case of grant of reward to Government <\/p>\n
servants in excess of the limits specified above <\/p>\n
should be examined and approved by a Committee <\/p>\n
consisting of the following :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Amount of reward for                             Constitution of the \n\nGovt. Servants                                       Committee\n\n\n\n1. Rewards in excess of Rs.10,000\/-     1. Head of Department\n\n<\/pre>\n
    but not exceeding Rs. One lac          2. Additional Collector                   <\/p>\n
    and                                      <\/p>\n
3. Senior most Deputy        <\/p>\n
Collector\/ Dy. Collector <\/p>\n
all the Hqrs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2. Rewards in excess of Rs.1 Lac        1. Head of Department<\/p>\n
    and upto Rs.5 Lacs                           2. Director, Preventive <\/p>\n
                                                                  Operations and<\/p>\n
                                                              3. Additional Collector\/<\/p>\n
                                                                  Special Director in <\/p>\n
                                                                  charge  of the Hqrs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.  Reward in excess of Rs.5 Lacs     1. Concerned Member of <\/p>\n
the C.B.E.C. or G.C.A.\n<\/p>\n
as the Case may and<\/p>\n
2.\tDGRI\/Director, <\/p>\n
Enforcement\/ Director, <\/p>\n
Anti-Evasion as the  <\/p>\n
case may be, and <\/p>\n
3.\tthe Head of <\/p>\n
Department<\/p>\n
concerned.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t   It is not in controversy that an amendment came to be issued vide <\/p>\n
P.No.R-13011\/5\/89.Ad.v. of the Department of Revenue in April 1989 limiting <\/p>\n
the total reward to Rs.1 lakh for seizure and to a total limit of Rs.10 lakhs in <\/p>\n
ones career, though there was dispute about its relevance and applicability to <\/p>\n
the claim of the respondent on the ground that it had no retrospective <\/p>\n
application to the seizure effected on 24.2.1989, in this case. <\/p>\n
\tThe decision of the Division Bench rendered in affirmance of the one <\/p>\n
rendered by the Single Bench suffer from a serious infirmity in not adverting <\/p>\n
properly to the basics and fundamentals of the Scheme for Rewards and in <\/p>\n
assuming to the contra that when an informer could be given liberally, the <\/p>\n
Government servant also, must be shown the same consideration, whereas a <\/p>\n
careful scanning through may go to show that an Informant is placed on a <\/p>\n
different pedestal than a Government servant.  The rewards are also to be <\/p>\n
and can be “upto 20%” or as the case may be and not that invariably it must <\/p>\n
be as a rule 20% of the estimated market value.  Reward is purely an ex <\/p>\n
gratia payment, subject to the Guidelines on the discretion of the competent <\/p>\n
authority, though it cannot arbitrarily be denied or refused at whim or fancy <\/p>\n
and it should specifically conform to and must be shown to fall or claimed <\/p>\n
within the four corners of the Scheme and not by any deviation or modulation <\/p>\n
of the Scheme, as the Courts think it should be and if it cannot come strictly <\/p>\n
within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be dealt with only under <\/p>\n
the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward.  That apart, being ex <\/p>\n
gratia, no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded <\/p>\n
and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the Guidelines <\/p>\n
and Policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has <\/p>\n
to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in <\/p>\n
the Scheme itself.  The line of decisions relation to vested rights accrued <\/p>\n
being protected from any subsequent amendments may not be relevant for <\/p>\n
such a situation and it would be apposite to advert to the decision of this <\/p>\n
Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M\/s Hind Stone & Ors. [(1981) 2 <\/p>\n
SCC 205].  That was a case wherein this Court had to consider the claims of <\/p>\n
lessees for renewal of their leases or for grant of fresh leases under the Tamil <\/p>\n
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.   The High Court was of the <\/p>\n
view that it was not open to the State Government to keep the applications <\/p>\n
filed for lease or renewal for a long time and then dispose them of on the <\/p>\n
basis of a rule which had come into force later.  This Court, while reversing <\/p>\n
such view taken by the High Court, held that in the absence of any vested <\/p>\n
rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with <\/p>\n
according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, <\/p>\n
despite the delay, if any, involved although it is desirable to dispose of the <\/p>\n
applications, expeditiously.  Therefore, the reward could not have been <\/p>\n
allowed in this case completely ignoring the amendments, which came into <\/p>\n
force in April 1989, merely because the seizure was in February 1989.  That <\/p>\n
apart, under the Scheme final reward is postulated only on adjudication of the <\/p>\n
case resulting in confiscation of the goods as found stated in clause 6 of the <\/p>\n
Guidelines and that should, therefore, be crucial and relevant date for <\/p>\n
consideration of award and, therefore, the Guidelines, as are in force on that <\/p>\n
date, will be really applicable and would relevant.  Consequently, the <\/p>\n
exclusion of the amendment, which was made in April 1989, from <\/p>\n
consideration in this case, may not be proper, and the conclusion to the <\/p>\n
contrary by the High Court, cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
\tThe interpretation placed as though the restrictions in clause 7 will <\/p>\n
have no relevance to the officers other than the officers specified of the <\/p>\n
Department of Central Excise\/Customs cannot be justified, either on the <\/p>\n
language of the Guidelines or on the conspectus of the Scheme for rewards.  <\/p>\n
The classification made is between informers on the one hand and <\/p>\n
Government servants on the other \u2013 and not with reference to any particular <\/p>\n
class of category of Government servants alone.  The specification of certain <\/p>\n
officers are meant to illustrate the level and standard of their category\/class <\/p>\n
with particular reference to the gradation of offices they hold and the granting <\/p>\n
authority or courts, if need be, have to necessarily arrive at the equivalence in <\/p>\n
other Departments as well \u2013 from among the other class of Government <\/p>\n
servants, as a whole, serving either under the State or Central Government \u2013 <\/p>\n
and the Scheme cannot be mutilated otherwise or moulded to suit the <\/p>\n
consideration of a particular or given case, favourably.  Clause 8.1.3 provides <\/p>\n
the necessary clue in this regard and the consideration, if at all, has to be with <\/p>\n
reference to the provisions contained in clause 4 and the various Guidelines <\/p>\n
contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor all the reasons stated above, we are unable to accord approval to <\/p>\n
the decision of the High Court.  The judgment under challenge is, therefore, <\/p>\n
set aside.  On the facts of the case, it is found that on 4.7.1995, after the <\/p>\n
decision of the learned Single Judge, a High Level Committee seems to have <\/p>\n
considered the claims of the respondent for reward and recommended a sum <\/p>\n
of Rs.1.25 lakhs, subject to the final decision of the High Court, and kept in <\/p>\n
abeyance the actual disbursal of the sum.  In the light of all these and instead <\/p>\n
of relegating the matter for fresh review, by the authorities in the Government, <\/p>\n
involving further delay also, we would instead direct the payment of a reward <\/p>\n
of Rs.2.50 lakhs, treating the same as a special case and the delay already <\/p>\n
involved and the decision said to have been taken \u2013 in order to give a quietus <\/p>\n
to the problem.  The sum directed by this order may be disbursed within a <\/p>\n
period of sixty days from this date without fail.  The appeal shall stand allowed <\/p>\n
to the extent indicated above and subject to the payment ordered above.  The <\/p>\n
respondent has been driven to unnecessary litigation by completely denying <\/p>\n
anything initially for all his efforts and had to face proceedings in this Court <\/p>\n
also.  The appellant will pay Rs.15,000\/- for the costs of the respondent, while <\/p>\n
bearing their own costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 Author: R Babu Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Doraiswamy Raju. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2769 of 1999 PETITIONER: Union of India RESPONDENT: Vs. R. Padmanabhan DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/08\/2003 BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU. JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3484,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003"},"wordCount":3484,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003","name":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T14:13:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-padmanabhan-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs R. Padmanabhan on 13 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}