PIL Maintainable but Judicial Deference to Executive Discretion in Extension of Chief Secretary Under Pending Corruption Prosecution

1. Introduction

The judgment in Atul Sharma v. Union Of India & Others, CWPIL No. 26 of 2025, decided by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 21 November 2025, addresses a sensitive intersection of public interest litigation (PIL), service jurisprudence, and anti-corruption norms.

The petitioner, Atul Sharma, approached the High Court in PIL challenging:

• The six-month extension of service granted on 28.03.2025 to Prabodh Saxena (respondent no. 3), Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh, under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (AIS DCRB Rules).
• The alleged non-compliance with Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Guidelines, particularly Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.10.2024, on vigilance clearance for extensions and appointments to “sensitive posts”.
• The legality of granting vigilance clearance to respondent no. 3 despite:
  • A CBI charge-sheet having been filed in a corruption case (FIPB / INX Media matter),
  • Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 197 CrPC, and
  • Cognizance taken by the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, on 21.10.2019.

The respondents – the Union of India, the State of Himachal Pradesh, and the Chief Secretary – opposed the petition on multiple grounds, notably:

• Non-maintainability of PIL in service matters, characterising the dispute as a pure service issue.
• Assertion that extension under Rule 16 is a purely administrative, policy-based decision within the exclusive domain of the executive, subject only to very limited judicial review.
• Contention that the DoPT OM of 09.10.2024 was either inapplicable or, in any event, could not override the statutory rule framed under the All India Services Act, 1951.

The High Court framed and answered two principal issues:

1. Maintainability: Whether a PIL challenging the extension of service of a Chief Secretary is maintainable, particularly when the officer faces pending corruption proceedings.
2. Judicial Review on Merits: Whether the Central Government’s decision to approve the extension is open to judicial review, and if so, whether it is vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality, or non-consideration of relevant material.

The judgment is significant for two intertwined reasons:

• It carves out an exception to the general rule that PILs are not maintainable in service matters, where institutional integrity and public trust in governance are at stake.
• It nevertheless reaffirms strong judicial deference to executive discretion in top-level appointments and extensions, especially where the statutory scheme grants wide latitude and the record shows that adverse material was placed before the competent authority.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Findings on Maintainability

On the first issue, the High Court held that the PIL is maintainable despite the dispute technically arising in a service context. The Court reasoned that:

• The Chief Secretary holds the highest administrative post in the State, with direct implications on governance, policy implementation, and public administration.
• When such an officer faces serious corruption allegations with sanction for prosecution and a charge-sheet filed, the public interest in clean and accountable governance is directly implicated.
• The Doctrine of Public Trust and the right of citizens to honest, corruption-free administration justify judicial scrutiny of the decision-making process behind such an extension.
• The petitioner is not a rival candidate nor seeking personal service benefits; there is no apparent private motive, hence the PIL cannot be dismissed as a busybody’s interference.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the preliminary objection that a PIL in a service-related matter is per se non-maintainable. It held that, in the peculiar facts, the matter concerns public interest in integrity of governance, not an individual’s service grievance.

2.2 Findings on Judicial Review and Validity of Extension

On the second issue, the Court upheld the extension and dismissed the PIL on merits. Its key conclusions are:

• The extension of the Chief Secretary’s service was granted under Rule 16 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, which:
  • Makes the normal age of superannuation 60 years; and
  • In its third proviso, permits extension of up to six months to a Chief Secretary, on the recommendation of the State Government with “full justification and in public interest”, subject to prior approval of the Central Government.
• The Court called for and examined the original Government of India file. This showed that:
  • The Chief Minister’s letter dated 20.03.2025 gave detailed justification in public interest – citing the Chief Secretary’s leadership in major policy initiatives like making Himachal Pradesh a green state, developing tourism, financial discipline, and sustainable development.
  • The fact of sanction for prosecution, the CBI charge-sheet in the FIPB/INX Media matter, and the pendency of trial were explicitly noted in the notings.
  • The file also recorded that vigilance clearance had been denied for other purposes, but this did not automatically preclude an extension under Rule 16.
• The Court held that once the competent authority (the Union Government/DoPT Minister-in-Charge) had considered all relevant material, including the pendency of criminal proceedings, the Court would:
  • Limit its review to the legality and rationality of the decision-making process, and
  • Not substitute its own view on whether the extension ought to have been granted.
• The Court also noted that:
  • Charges had not yet been framed against respondent no. 3; the case was at a pre-charge stage.
  • Following Supreme Court decisions (e.g., K.V. Jankiraman and subsequent cases), mere filing of a charge-sheet without framing of charges does not, by itself, disqualify an officer from career progression, absent specific rules to that effect.
  • The DoPT OM dated 09.10.2024 on vigilance clearance was not the governing norm for a Chief Secretary’s extension under a statutory Rule framed under the All India Services Act. The vigilance certificate relied on by the petitioner related to the prospective post of Chairman, HP RERA, not to the extension of tenure as Chief Secretary.

Accordingly, while holding that it had jurisdiction to examine the matter, the High Court:

• Found no procedural illegality, arbitrariness, or non-consideration of relevant factors in the decision to grant extension.
• Declined to interfere with the extension order.
• Noted that the six-month extension had, in fact, already expired on 30.09.2025, but chose to decide the issues due to their legal significance and potential financial implications.

The petition was, therefore, dismissed, with the first issue (maintainability) decided in favour of the petitioner, and the second (merits of the extension) decided against him.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 The Legal Framework: Rule 16 and DoPT Vigilance Guidelines

3.1.1 Rule 16 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958

Rule 16(1) of the AIS (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 provides:

• Ordinary retirement is at the age of 60 years.
• A second proviso allows extension of up to 3 months in certain narrow situations (budget work or membership of committees that will soon be wound up).
• The third proviso, introduced later, specifically provides that:

  “A Member of the Service holding the post of Chief Secretary to a State Government may be given extension of service for a period not exceeding six months on the recommendations made by the concerned State Government with full justification and in public interest, with the prior approval of the Central Government.”

Crucial elements of this proviso are:

• Person-specific and post-specific: It applies solely to a member of the AIS holding the post of Chief Secretary of a State.
• Limited duration: Extension cannot exceed six months.
• Dual conditions:
  • Recommendation by the State Government, with “full justification”, and
  • Prior approval of the Central Government, which must be satisfied that the extension is in “public interest”.

The Court emphasises that Rule 16 is framed under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951, thus carrying the status of a statutory rule. Subordinate instructions like DoPT OMs cannot cut down the power conferred by such a rule unless the rule itself is amended.

3.1.2 DoPT OM dated 09.10.2024 on Vigilance Clearance

The petitioner heavily relied on the DoPT OM of 09.10.2024, which:

• Classifies certain posts as “sensitive posts”, necessitating stricter vigilance scrutiny.
• Stipulates that vigilance clearance shall not be granted where:
  • A charge-sheet has been filed in court in a criminal case, or
  • Sanction for prosecution has been granted under anti-corruption laws.
• Requires, in Clause 5, that inputs be obtained from the State Government, the Central Vigilance Commission, and the concerned Ministry/Department before clearance is granted.

The petitioner contended that:

• The posts of Chief Secretary and Chairman, HP RERA are “sensitive posts” within the OM.
• Given:
  • Sanction for prosecution,
  • A filed charge-sheet, and
  • Cognizance by the Special Court,
  vigilance clearance could not lawfully be given, and any extension granted post 09.10.2024 was void.

The respondents, particularly the State Government and respondent no. 3, argued:

• Vigilance clearance in question was issued only in the context of his application for the post of Chairman, HP RERA.
• No vigilance clearance was required, or in fact issued, for the extension as Chief Secretary under Rule 16.
• The DoPT OM governs internal administrative vigilance processes; it cannot override or abridge the statutory power to grant extension under Rule 16.

The Court accepts, in effect, the respondent’s position: Rule 16 is the controlling norm for extension of the Chief Secretary’s tenure, and the OM cannot be used to invalidate a decision that is otherwise taken within the four corners of that statutory rule, after full consideration of material, including the pendency of criminal proceedings.

3.2 Maintainability: PIL in a Service-Related Context

A central contribution of this judgment is in its nuanced treatment of PIL maintainability in service matters.

3.2.1 General Rule: PIL Not for Individual Service Disputes

The Union of India and the State relied on established Supreme Court precedent that:

• PIL is not meant to resolve individual service disputes or inter se rivalries among officers.
• Cases like Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 6 SCC 72 caution courts against:
  • Allowing meddlesome interlopers to hijack public interest for private ends, and
  • Using PIL to interfere with ongoing criminal or service proceedings for extraneous reasons.

Ordinarily, if an individual officer’s promotion, transfer, or retirement is challenged, the matter lies either before service tribunals or in writ jurisdiction at the instance of a person aggrieved, not through PIL.

3.2.2 Why This PIL Was Held Maintainable

The High Court, while conscious of these warnings, distinguishes the present case on the following grounds:

• Nature of the Post:
  • The Chief Secretary is “the highest position for the Executive Authority” in the State, as noted by the Court.
  • His decisions impact the entire administration and, by extension, the general public.
• Nature of Allegations:
  • Respondent no. 3 is not facing routine disciplinary action but a CBI prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with:
    • Sanction for prosecution granted (26.08.2019),
    • Charge-sheet filed (18.10.2019), and
    • Cognizance taken (21.10.2019) in the FIPB/INX Media case, where he is an accused (no. 10).
  • The allegations relate to abuse of official position during his tenure as Director (FIPB) in the Ministry of Finance.
• Public Trust and Institutional Integrity:
  • The Court invokes the Doctrine of Public Trust, stating that public officials are trustees of the power conferred on them.
  • Appointment or continuation of an officer with serious corruption charges in a sensitive, apex post can erode public confidence in governance.
• Absence of Private Interest:
  • The petitioner is not a contestant for the post, nor seeking any service advantage.
  • His prior representation to the High Court regarding HP RERA was part of his broader concern with institutional integrity, not evidence of personal gain.

The Court therefore characterises the grievance as one touching upon:

• Public interest in clean administration,
• Transparency of decision-making in extending top officers’ tenures, and
• The right of citizens to know whether statutory powers are exercised for proper reasons.

On this basis, the Court holds that the usual bar on PIL in service matters is not absolute. Where the dispute concerns systemic integrity and public trust in governance, as with the extension of a Chief Secretary facing corruption prosecution, a PIL is maintainable.

3.3 Judicial Review: Scope and Deference to Executive Discretion

3.3.1 Examination of Original File and Factual Findings

Importantly, the Court did not decide abstractly. It:

• Called for the original file from the Union of India, after initially facing resistance on 22.09.2025.
• Ultimately, the file was produced by special messenger and examined by the Bench.

The file revealed:

• A detailed letter dated 20.03.2025 from the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the Prime Minister, setting out:
  • Policy initiatives (green-state, green-hydrogen, solar energy, tourism expansion, e-buses/e-taxis, fiscal discipline) being spearheaded by respondent no. 3.
  • The State’s need to retain him as Chief Secretary for another year (though Rule 16 permits only six months, which was ultimately granted).
• Internal notings in DoPT recording:
  • Past instances (around 57, since 2013) where Chief Secretaries in different States had been extended under similar rules.
  • Sanction for prosecution having been granted against respondent no. 3.
  • A charge-sheet filed and the case pending trial.
  • That vigilance clearance had been denied for other purposes because of these factors.

Despite this adverse material, the competent authority concluded that:

• There was sufficient public interest justification for extension, and
• The extension would be limited to six months in conformity with Rule 16.

3.3.2 Legal Standard: Limited Judicial Review

The Court then applies a well-established standard of judicial review of administrative discretion, drawing from:

• State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 – courts do not sit in appeal over administrative decisions and interfere only if:
  • The discretion is exercised in a perverse or illegal manner, or
  • The decision is arbitrary, or vitiated by malice or non-consideration of relevant material.
• Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust (2011) 2 SCC 575 – emphasizing:
  • “Play in the joints” for the executive in policy matters,
  • That courts must be cautious not to replace executive judgment with judicial preferences.
• Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 – classic articulation of judicial restraint in administrative and contractual decisions, referred to in later cases like Dilip Kumar Garg.

Applying these principles, the High Court holds that:

• Its role is confined to checking whether the decision-making process:
  • Considered all relevant factors (including the pending prosecution),
  • Was within the statutory bounds of Rule 16, and
  • Was free from gross arbitrariness or malice.
• Since the file clearly shows that:
  • The prosecution and denial of vigilance clearance were noted, and
  • The decision was still taken in view of the Chief Minister’s detailed justification,
  the Court cannot substitute its own opinion on the desirability of extension.

The Court expressly declines to judge whether, on merits, it would have granted the extension, reiterating that it is not an appellate authority over executive policy.

3.4 The Stage of Criminal Proceedings: Chargesheet vs. Framing of Charge

Another important thread is the Court’s treatment of the effect of pending criminal proceedings on service benefits, including extension.

3.4.1 Reliance on K.V. Jankiraman and Subsequent Cases

The Court relies on:

• Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 – which held:
  • For adopting the sealed cover procedure (in promotions etc.), departmental or criminal proceedings are treated as pending only once a charge memo (disciplinary) or charge-sheet (criminal) has been issued.
  • Mere preliminary investigation is insufficient.
• CMD, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha (2011) 5 SCC 142 and Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013) 4 SCC 161 – reiterating and applying Jankiraman.

While Jankiraman is focused on promotions and sealed cover, the High Court uses its underlying principle to emphasise that:

• Employees should not be disadvantaged purely on the basis of long-drawn investigations, especially when such investigations may be initiated or prolonged by interested parties.
• There must be a concrete procedural stage (charge memo/charge-sheet, and in some contexts, even framing of charge) before adverse service consequences follow automatically.

3.4.2 Application to the Present Case

Applying this logic, the Court notes:

• Though a charge-sheet was filed in 2019 and cognizance taken, the case remains at a pre-charge stage; charges have not yet been framed against respondent no. 3.
• During this intervening period:
  • He was promoted as Additional Chief Secretary (2020), and
  • Appointed as Chief Secretary (31.12.2022).
• The State had already treated him as fit for promotion and top-level appointment, notwithstanding the pending case.

The Court thus implicitly accepts the proposition that mere filing of a charge-sheet plus sanction for prosecution does not, by itself, legally bar consideration for extension, particularly where:

• The statutory rule (Rule 16) does not impose such a bar; and
• The employer (State and Centre) has consciously evaluated all material, including the pendency of the case.

This sets a practical though not explicit threshold:

• Pendency of prosecution at pre-charge stage is a relevant factor but not an automatic disqualifier for extension, especially where statutory provisions and institutional needs justify retention.

3.5 Role of Royappa and GNCTD: Nature of the Chief Secretary’s Post

The Court relies significantly on:

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 – a Constitution Bench judgment that:
  • Characterises the post of Chief Secretary as a “highly sensitive post”.
  • Emphasises the need for complete rapport and confidence between the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister.
  • Holds that an officer can be moved out of that post if such confidence is lacking, without it necessarily amounting to mala fide action.
• GNCTD v. Union of India (2023 INSC 1049) – where the Supreme Court discussed extensions of Chief Secretaries in Delhi:
  • It noted around 57 instances of such extensions since 2013.
  • It recognised extension under Rule 16 as a legitimate practice, not inherently suspicious.

The High Court uses these precedents to support two propositions:

1. The post of Chief Secretary is one of trust and political-executive confidence. If the Chief Minister wants a particular officer to continue, the law grants significant leeway, provided procedures are followed.
2. Extensions are not extraordinary aberrations but a recognised tool in administrative practice, especially in complex governance environments.

This context reinforces judicial reluctance to interfere with who the political executive wishes to have as its principal bureaucratic adviser, unless the extension decision is tainted by illegality or arbitrariness.

3.6 Distinguishing Vishal Sharma v. State of H.P. (HP HC, 2025)

The petitioner cited the High Court’s earlier decision in Vishal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 231 of 2025 (decided 01.04.2025), where:

• A re-employment (post-retirement engagement) of the Director, Animal Husbandry was quashed.
• The Court found non-compliance with the State Government’s Handbook on Personnel Matters (Chapter 22), which governed re-employment.
• The file showed a lack of real justification and proper processing by the department.

In Atul Sharma, the High Court distinguishes that case:

• Different legal regime:
  • Vishal Sharma concerned re-employment under State instructions.
  • Atul Sharma involves extension under Rule 16, a central statutory rule for All India Services officers.
• Procedural differences:
  • In Vishal Sharma, the file did not demonstrate proper justification or processing.
  • Here, the Chief Minister’s detailed letter and the full DoPT note-sheet show:
    • Conscious application of mind,
    • Clear public interest justification, and
    • Consideration of adverse vigilance/criminal material.

Thus, the Court rejects the analogy to Vishal Sharma, reinforcing that Chief Secretary extensions form a special category, governed by a specific statutory regime.

4. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

4.1 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Locus Standi

Traditionally, only a person who is directly aggrieved by a decision (such as the affected employee) could challenge it. PIL relaxes this rule, allowing any public-spirited individual to approach the court where:

• The issue affects a large number of people, or
• Concerns systemic governance failures, corruption, or violation of fundamental rights.

In this case, the Court applies the broader PIL standing rule because:

• The case involves top-level governance and public trust, not merely one officer’s conditions of service.

4.2 Doctrine of Public Trust and Institutional Integrity

The Doctrine of Public Trust treats the State and its officials as trustees of public power. They must use that power:

• In the public interest,
• With transparency and accountability, and
• Free from arbitrariness or corrupt motives.

Institutional integrity refers to the need for public institutions (like civil services, regulators, courts) to maintain:

• Clean reputations,
• Impartiality, and
• Credibility in the eyes of the public.

The Court uses these concepts to justify opening the door to PIL scrutiny over the extension of a Chief Secretary facing corruption charges, even if ultimately the decision is upheld.

4.3 Vigilance Clearance and DoPT Guidelines

Vigilance clearance is an administrative certification that an officer:

• Is not under a cloud of serious pending investigation or prosecution, and
• Can be safely considered for promotion, deputation, sensitive postings, or awards.

The DoPT OM of 09.10.2024:

• Sets criteria and procedures for granting or denying vigilance clearance.
• Has particular rigor for “sensitive posts”, which are positions where an officer’s integrity has a disproportionately high impact on governance or public funds.

However, such OMs are executive instructions, not statutory law. They cannot, by themselves, override:

• A statutory rule like Rule 16, or
• An informed decision by a competent authority that explicitly considers the relevant material.

4.4 Sanction for Prosecution and Cognizance

• Sanction under Section 19 PC Act / Section 197 CrPC:
  • Required before public servants can be prosecuted for acts done in the discharge of official duty.
  • Grant of sanction means the competent authority has allowed criminal prosecution to proceed.
• Charge-sheet:
  • A formal document filed by the prosecution detailing the accusations and evidence against the accused.
• Cognizance:
  • The stage at which a criminal court formally takes note of the offence and proceeds to consider the case.
• Framing of charge:
  • When the court, after hearing both sides, frames specific charges against the accused, signalling that there is sufficient ground to proceed to trial.

Here, sanction, charge-sheet, and cognizance had all occurred; however, charges had not yet been framed against respondent no. 3.

4.5 Extension vs. Re-employment

• Extension:
  • The officer continues in service as if retirement had not yet occurred, under a statutory provision like Rule 16.
  • He remains subject to same service rules; it is a continuation of existing tenure.
• Re-employment:
  • An officer retires and then is rehired, often on contract or under special instructions.
  • Typically governed by separate re-employment policies/instructions (e.g., State Personnel Handbooks).

This distinction is central to why Vishal Sharma (re-employment case) does not control the outcome in Atul Sharma (extension case).

5. Impact and Significance

5.1 On PIL Jurisprudence in Service Matters

The judgment creates a nuanced position:

• Affirms that, generally, PIL is not a vehicle for ordinary service disputes.
• Carves out an exception where:
  • The post in question is of constitutional or systemic importance (e.g., Chief Secretary), and
  • The challenge is based on institutional integrity and public trust, not rivalry or personal ambition.

This is likely to be cited in future cases involving:

• Extensions or appointments of Chief Secretaries, Directors General of Police, Heads of regulatory bodies, etc.
• Situations where such officers face serious corruption or integrity-related allegations.

  5.2 On Executive Practice in Granting Extensions

  The judgment sends several clear signals to governments:

  • File scrutiny is real: Courts may call for and examine the original government file to verify whether:
    • All relevant material (including adverse vigilance/criminal records) was placed before the competent authority, and
    • There is a genuine “full justification” in “public interest”.
  • Detailed justification is essential: Generic statements will not suffice. The Chief Minister’s letter in this case carefully detailed policy initiatives and governance needs.
  • Consideration of adverse material is mandatory: Failure to note the pendency of prosecution, or deliberate concealment of such facts, could render a future extension vulnerable to being struck down.

  While the Court ultimately defers to executive judgment, it reinforces that such discretion must be exercised in a documented, reasoned, and transparent manner.

  5.3 On the Role of DoPT Vigilance OMs

  The judgment has a subtle but important effect on the status of vigilance guidelines:

  • They are important administrative tools and may guide decisions on promotions, deputations, and appointments to sensitive posts.
  • However, they do not automatically trump statutory rules like Rule 16.
  • The Court’s approach suggests that:
    • Non-compliance with an OM may be relevant, but not necessarily fatal, particularly when the statutory route (Rule 16) has been scrupulously followed, and
    • Any conflict must be resolved in favour of the statutory framework, not the OM.

  This may temper future attempts to challenge extensions solely on the basis of alleged breach of vigilance OMs, particularly where statutory rules explicitly confer broad discretion.

  5.4 On Officers Facing Criminal Proceedings

  From an individual officer’s perspective, the judgment indicates:

  • Pending criminal proceedings at a pre-charge stage do not create a per se bar against:
    • Promotion, or
    • Extension (under statutory rules),
    if the employer is fully aware and consciously decides to proceed.
  • However, vigilance clearance and extensions may both become subject to public and judicial scrutiny, particularly via PIL, where the post is sensitive and allegations are grave.

  This reflects a balance between:

  • Preserving the presumption of innocence until conviction or at least framing of charge, and
  • Recognising the public interest in safeguarding institutional integrity.

  5.5 On Anti-Corruption and Governance Discourse

  The judgment presents a mixed picture for anti-corruption advocates:

  • Positive:
    • It recognises citizens’ right to question extensions given to top officials facing PC Act prosecutions.
    • It explicitly frames such cases as implicating the doctrine of public trust and clean governance.
  • Concerning (from a strict anti-corruption standpoint):
    • Despite pending prosecution and denial of vigilance clearance for other matters, the Court upholds the extension, signalling high judicial deference.
    • Those seeking stricter standards may worry that “public interest” justifications can be used to retain powerful officers under a cloud, so long as the file shows some rational basis.

  In essence, while the judgment opens the door for scrutiny, it also underscores that ultimate responsibility for integrity-based decisions rests with the political executive and the Union Government, not the courts.

  6. Conclusion

  The decision in Atul Sharma v. Union Of India & Others marks an important development in Indian public law at the interface of PIL, administrative discretion, and anti-corruption governance.

  Its key takeaways are:

  • PIL Maintainability: The Court confirms that PIL is maintainable even in a service-related context where:
    • The post is of systemic significance (Chief Secretary), and
    • The challenge implicates public trust and institutional integrity, not individual service grievances.
  • Statutory Supremacy: Rule 16 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, as a statutory provision, governs Chief Secretary extensions. Executive OMs on vigilance cannot automatically override this rule.
  • Judicial Deference: Courts will not interfere with an extension decision under Rule 16 where:
    • The State Government’s recommendation records full justification in public interest,
    • The Central Government (competent authority) is apprised of all relevant facts, including pending prosecutions, and
    • The decision is not arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse.
  • Pending Prosecutions: The mere fact of a pending PC Act prosecution at pre-charge stage—even with sanction and charge-sheet—does not automatically bar extension, though it must be a central consideration in the decision-making process.
  • Transparency and Accountability: While upholding the extension, the Court’s insistence on examining the file and its articulation of public trust and integrity principles sets a standard for transparency, documentation, and reasoned justification in future extension decisions.

  Overall, the judgment strengthens the idea that:

  • Courts can and will scrutinise how governments exercise power over top-level bureaucratic appointments and extensions, especially when corruption allegations exist; but
  • Courts will not usurp the executive’s discretion where the statutory framework has been followed and the decision reflects a conscious, reasoned evaluation of competing considerations.

  This dual message—a wider entry gate for PIL coupled with a narrow corridor for substantive interference—is the core contribution of Atul Sharma to Indian administrative and constitutional law.