Lax Officers-in-Charge Face Costs and Disciplinary Action; Counsel Must Get Pending-Case Lists: Rajasthan High Court

Badri Narayan Sharma's writ petition against the State, through its Public Health and Engineering Department, had been pending since 2016 (para 2); the order does not describe his claim. The Court found that the concerned OIC had not handed the case file to the department's counsel (para 1). On 07.02.2025, in Sardar Mal Yadav, the same Court had directed the Chief Secretary, the Advocate General and the Principal Law Secretary to make OICs assist government counsel, warning that an adverse order caused by poor assistance would be the officer's personal responsibility (para 2). The State's own machinery includes the Justice Department set up in 2005, the LITES case-tracking software and District Magistrates as nodal officers for court cases (paras 4-5).

The Court observed that in most cases OICs do not give the original file to their advocates, so hearings are deferred from day to day, which hampers justice to litigants (para 2). Rule 233 of the 1999 Manual lays down an OIC's duties, but OICs appear unaware of them and handle court cases casually (para 3). Departmental advocates change with governments; newly appointed ones cite non-receipt of files, and no department-wise list of pending cases is given to them, so they cannot tell how many cases are pending (para 3). Despite the Justice Department, LITES and the circulars, every effort had failed because officers treat court cases without seriousness and urgency (paras 4-7). The Court then made fourteen suggestions, including performance evaluation with a column in APRs/ACRs for cases decided, penalties for delay, inter-departmental meetings, training, case-management software integrated with e-Courts, AI-based case sorting, data analytics, real-time dashboards, rewards for efficient officers and a Central Case Oversight Unit (para 7). Better role definition, coordination, training and technology would, it said, speed up case resolution (para 8).