PIL maintainable to challenge service extension of corruption-accused officer on sensitive post for public trust; judicial review limited to decision process—no interference if authority apprised of facts sans framed charges.

Judgment :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction to (i) quash the extension order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), granting six months' service extension to Shri Prabodh Saxena-respondent No-3 herein, as Chief Secretary, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh; (ii) direct the respondents to comply with DOPT Guidelines, particularly the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2024, regarding Vigilance Clearance for service extension and appointment to sensitive post; (iii) direct an independent inquiry into the circumstances under which the defective Vigilance Clearance was granted to respondent No-3; and (iv) direct the initiation of disciplinary action against official(s) responsible for granting the Clearance Certificate, if any, after 09.10.2024, despite pending criminal proceedings, mainly on the following grounds:-

(i) The extension of service granted to respondent No.3 is stated to be violative of Service Rules and DoPT Guidelines. As per the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2024, Vigilance Clearance cannot be granted to an officer who is an accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). Clearance, if any, after 09.10.2024, despite the fact that Clauses 3(f) and 3(g) of the DoPT Guidelines prohibit granting Vigilance Clearance when a Charge Sheet has been filed in Court and when sanction for prosecution has been granted is bad in law.

(ii) The posts of Chief Secretary & Chairman, HP RERA are sensitive posts, which fall under Clause 2(vi) of the DoPT Guidelines. Clauses 2(iv) and 2(vi) require strict scrutiny and issue of Vigilance Clearance before granting extensions or deputations or appointment to sensitive posts. Since these these Guidelines having been by-passed, the extension order is stated to be in clear violation of established service norms and administrative exigency. Clause 5 of the DoPT Clearance provides that inputs must be obtained from the State Government, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and the relevant Ministry/Department of the Central Government. In the present case, none of these consultations were conducted, which makes the extension arbitrary and illegal.

(iii). It is stated that there are pending criminal charges against respondent No.3 and the CBI has already filed a charge sheet against respondent No.3 in a Corruption Case, and the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, has taken cognizance on the matter on 21.10.2019. The Government of India has granted sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 19 7 of Cr.PC and despite these pending criminal proceedings, Vigilance Clearance was granted, which is in contravention of Clauses 3(f) and 3(g) of DoPT Guidelines. Respondent No.3, in his tenure as Chief Secretary & Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Himachal Pradesh, was allegedly involved in misusing his official position for personal gain, by-passing Administrative Norms to benefit selected individuals or entities, and failing to disclose full details of corr