Shimla, Nov. 22 -- Himachal Pradesh high court on Friday dismissed the petition challenging the six month extension to former chief secretary Prabodh Saxena. "We decline to interfere in the decision-making process regarding the extension granted and the discretion which was exercised by respondent no.1 (Government of India ) to grant the benefit of six months extension" read the order of division bench of chief justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Ranjan Sharma. Saxena's six month extension as chief secretary ended on September 30 and hours after this he was appointed as chairman of the HP state electricity board for three years. Saxena, who is considered close to CM Sukhu, was appointed as the chief secretary of state on December 31, 2022 and he was due to retire on March 31. The 1990-batch officer was given six-month extension in March. Petitioner Atul Sharma had sought quashing of extension given to Prabodh Saxena as chief secretary on the ground that it was given in clear violation of the Central Services Rules and Guidelines of department of personnel & training. The petition argued that vigilance clearance cannot be granted to an officer who is an accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition also pointed out that already chargesheet has been filed in the court and on September 30, 2022, Saxena was granted exemption for personal appearance in the case pending against him. Saxena faces chargesheet in the infamous INX Media scam, in which then Union finance minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti are also named as accused. Saxena, between April 2008 and July 2010, served as the director of the department of economic affairs (DEA), which housed the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) that was responsible for approving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) proposals. The high court on Friday in its order said, "....keeping in view the settled principle of law as noticed above once the competent authority was apprised with the background of the case pertaining to respondent no.3 (Prabodh Saxena) and keeping in view the exigencies and the requirements of the state stressed by the chief minister on behalf of the state government, this Court is of the considered opinion that the extension which was granted was within the ambit of the Rule 16 of the 'Rules, 1958' and therefore, is not liable to be interfered with while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." During the arguments, the Union government had told the HC that CM Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu had sent a request for recommending the grant of extension in service to Prabodh Saxena....