Former Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena: PIL maintainable on public trust grounds, but HC backs Centre’s decision
Shimla, Nov 22,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on friday upheld the six-month service extension granted to Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, concluding that the Union Government had taken the decision after being “well apprised of all the facts,” including the pending CBI prosecution and sanction granted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed the PIL but first held it maintainable, observing that extending the tenure of an officer facing corruption charges raises a legitimate issue of public trust. “Granting extension of service to an officer facing corruption charges would only erode public confidence in governance,” the Bench noted, adding that appointments to such sensitive posts “must withstand the test of institutional integrity,” thereby establishing that citizens were justified in seeking judicial scrutiny of the process.
After examining the original DoPT files produced in court, the Bench recorded that the Centre had not acted mechanically or in ignorance of Saxena’s legal status. The order states that the competent authority was “well apprised of all the facts and circumstances as such of the pendency of the criminal proceedings and the stage as such.” The judges noted that the Chief Minister had formally written to the Prime Minister on 20 March 2025 seeking Saxena’s continuation, citing his role in “spearheading measures” related to Green-State initiatives, solar energy, e-mobility and fiscal reforms. The Centre, while considering this request, also took note of precedents where similar extensions had been granted to Chief Secretaries in other states. The notings reflected that the Union Government had explicitly acknowledged the sanction for prosecution and the charge sheet filed in the INX Media case, yet concluded that Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958 allowed such an extension as long as the State provided full justification and public interest grounds.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the extension violated vigilance-clearance norms, clarifying that the DoPT’s 2024 vigilance guidelines did not govern extensions under Rule 16. It noted that while vigilance clearance had indeed been denied for Saxena’s application to head HP RERA, that fact did not bar consideration for extension as Chief Secretary. “It is not for this Court to substitute the merits of the decision,” the Bench observed, stressing that judicial review is confined to examining whether the decision-making process was arbitrary or uninformed. Finding no such flaw, the Court held that “once the competent authority was apprised with the background of the case… this Court is not inclined to go into the decision-making process itself by substituting the same by our own personal opinion.”
The judges further remarked that although Saxena’s six-month extension (from April 1 to September 30, 2025) had already expired by the time the matter was reserved for judgment, they were deciding the issues because of the substantial public questions involved. Concluding that the extension fell squarely within the framework of Rule 16 and that no procedural illegality occurred, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that “the extension which was granted was within the ambit of the Rule… and therefore, is not liable to be interfered with.”
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
