Thiruvananthapuram: Immovable property returns (IPRs), survey department data, and RTI replies examined by this newspaper reveal major inconsistencies in the asset declarations of Kerala Chief Secretary Dr. A. Jayathilak IAS (Kerala: 1991) over the past decade. The findings point to large property acquisitions during his tenure as Chairman of the Spices Board of India, substantial rental income that has never been declared, and ownership transfers in favour of close family members that were neither reported to the Government nor reflected in subsequent IPRs — all of which, if proved, constitute serious violations of service conduct rules and anti-corruption law.
Kochi flat purchases during Spices Board tenure
During his tenure as Chairman of the Spices Board between 2011 and 2016, Dr. Jayathilak purchased two high-value residential flats — one in Thiruvananthapuram in 2014 from MIR Realtors, and another in DLF Southern Towns, Kakkanad in 2017, one of Kochi’s premium residential complexes. These purchases were not reported to the Government prior to the transactions as required.
Under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, every officer is required to obtain prior permission from the Government before acquiring or disposing of any immovable property by purchase, lease or mortgage, in their own name or in the name of their spouse or dependants. No such prior sanction is traceable in the relevant records for either of these transactions.
The disclosures were also not made contemporaneously after purchase. Rule 16(4) mandates that, if prior permission is not obtained, officers must intimate the Government within one month of the transaction. In both cases, the disclosure was delayed by several years.
The source of funds for these purchases has not been properly explained in the IPRs. The officer has stated that they were based on bank loans, but no corresponding prior intimation or sanction for availing such loans for property acquisition is available. Under Rule 16(3) read with the relevant AIS guidelines, prior sanction is also required before raising loans for property acquisition. The absence of such sanction makes the claimed loan route itself irregular.
Substantial rental income not declared
The properties in question — including three houses in Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram, and the two apartments — together have an estimated rental potential exceeding ₹34 lakh per annum, based on prevailing market rates. Kowdiar is one of the most expensive localities in Kerala, where double-storeyed houses typically fetch upwards of ₹35,000 per month each. The Kakkanad apartment is located in a premium gated community where rentals range between ₹70,000 and ₹80,000 per month.
However, across all IPRs filed from 2014 to 2025, the officer has consistently declared “nil income” from immovable property.
Under Rule 16(2) of the AIS Conduct Rules, every officer must make a full and truthful statement of their assets and income, including those derived from property owned by them, their spouse or their dependants. Failure to disclose rental income constitutes a clear violation of this rule.
By underreporting the income and simultaneously showing old purchase values in the IPRs, the officer has also suppressed the market value of the assets, which has appreciated sharply over the years, especially in the central Thiruvananthapuram area. Market experts estimate that the Kowdiar properties alone would be worth several crores at present.
Transfers to dependants not disclosed
The properties originally shown in the early IPRs as inherited assets — particularly those in Kowdiar and Avanavancherry villages — have since been mutated in the names of the officer’s children, as revealed by Kerala Survey Department records and recent land tax receipts. These transactions were not reflected in subsequent IPRs.
Rule 16(3) of the AIS Conduct Rules requires prior intimation for any transaction involving immovable property, including transfers to family members. Additionally, Rule 16(2) mandates that all assets held in the name of dependants must be truthfully declared.
The transfers were made to the officer’s own dependants, not to unrelated third parties. Vigilance officers familiar with disproportionate assets investigations said this is a classic benami pattern — where ownership is shifted to family members while the beneficial enjoyment of the asset continues with the officer. Survey records show the mutation in favour of the children took place years ago, while the IPRs continued to either reflect ownership in a small notional share or omitted the transaction altogether.
Suppression of related party transactions
The annual rental income from multiple parties occupying these properties, estimated at over ₹34 lakh annually, has not been declared. Nor have the transactions involving family members been reported as “related party transactions”, which is obligatory under the asset declaration rules.
Rule 16(2) explicitly requires disclosure of the full extent of property transactions and income involving dependants. Knowingly furnishing false information, or suppressing material information in the IPRs, is treated as misconduct. The officer has been filing such returns annually for over a decade, signing a verification statement each time.
Rule violations and legal consequences
The pattern that emerges is one of non-intimation before purchase, delayed or incomplete disclosure after purchase, non-disclosure of rental income, suppression of transfers to dependants, and undervaluation of assets.
Under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, such conduct constitutes a major penalty offence, attracting departmental proceedings. More significantly, Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 criminalises possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Courts have held that failure to declare assets, understatement of value, or holding through family members can form the evidentiary foundation for a disproportionate assets investigation.
Senior vigilance officers who reviewed the documents observed that the combination of undisclosed purchases during the Spices Board period, suppressed income from multiple properties, and concealed family transfers constitutes prima facie material for a detailed disproportionate assets inquiry.
They also noted that all findings arise from official records — survey data, IPR filings, RTI replies and government rules — rather than private allegations, making the inconsistencies both serious and verifiable.
