1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1796/2000 Gokul Nath Sharma vs. State & Anr. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2834/1999 Bal Swaroop Garg vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 8/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Kumar Kuldeep for the petitioners. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, Dy. Govt. Counsel for State. Shri Hukam Chand Saini for the respondent. ****** These two petitions are directed against the common order by which the recovery of the amount of cost and the arrears paid to the concerned litigant under the order of this Court, have been ordered to be recovered from the petitioners. This Court while deciding the C.W. No.3910/89, Daulat Ram vs. State vide its judgment dated 18.2.1994 directed compliance of that judgment to be made within a period of two months. When the compliance of the judgment was not made, the aforesaid Daulat Ram filed a contempt petition. While deciding the contempt petition on 13.1.1995, the Court in view of the fact that 2 compliance of the judgments was not made directed Chief Secretary of State to get a proper enquiry conducted into the matter and fix the liability of the person who was responsible for misconduct of the government rules. The Secretary, Ayurved Department after notice to the petitioner, conducted an enquiry and further directed that the cost of Rs.2,000/- paid to the petitioner Daulat Ram and the amount of arrears for the period should be recovered from the salary of the Officer who is found negligent in conduct of the Government case. The Chief Secretary of the State Government entrusted the enquiry of the matter to Secretary, Ayurdev Department. A notice was issued to the petitioners and their reply was obtained. The Secretary in the enquiry found that while petitioner Gokul Lal Sharma was posted as Assistant District Ayurved Officer, Jaipur for the period from 12.7.1990 to 18.4.1994. The petitioner Bal Swaroop Garg then replaced him and remained in that office from 18.4.1994 to 17.7.1994. Since the compliance of the judgment was to be made within two months, which period expired 3 on 18.4.1994, the liability for two days was fixed on Gokul Nath Sharma for the further period from 16.4.1994 to 17.4.1994. Shri Mahendra Kumar Kuldeep, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in so far as the petitioner Bal Swaroop Garg is concerned, he was appointed as Assistant District Ayurved Officer on 18.4.1994 and continued in that office till 17.7.1994. During this period, he was never appointed as Officer-in-charge of the case. In any case, it was not possible for him to get the compliance of the order done as he was transferred and Gokul Nath Sharma was appointed on the post of Assistant District Ayurved Officer. It was the duty of the concerned Government authority to do so in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. The entire responsibility for the delay in getting the judgment complied therefore could not be fastened upon him. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, learned Assistant Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that it is not correct to say that District Ayurved Officer was not entered as Officer-in-charge. In fact, Gokul 4 Nath Sharma, the Assistant District Ayurved Officer A Zone, who was responsible for looking after the court cases, being appointed as Officer-in-charge vide order dated 27.10.1989. Shri Gokul Nath Sharma, was transferred in that office vice Dinesh Chand Sharma as Assistant District Ayurved Officer A Zone and therefore he became incharge of all those Court cases because his office was responsible for looking after the litigation and after his transfer, petitioner Bal Swaroop Garg took over. It was their duty to keep eye on the cases and when the case was decided, to apply for certified copy and then obtain legal opinion and thereafter get further appeal filed or ensure compliance thereof. It has been denied that the petitioners were not appointed as Officer-in-charge. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned oder as also the notice served to the petitioners, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. This order can neither be said to be arbitrary or other unreasonable. The Officer-in-charge of a 5 case is responsible for looking after the interest of the Government in the concerned departments and upon his transfer, when any new incumbent joins in his place and takes over charge of that office, he is also equally responsible for all such duties that are attached to his office. The order which has been passed by the respondents in my considered view is just and proper and does not call for interference. Both the writ petitions are therefore devoid of any merits and are hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/