Thiruvananthapuram: In a stunning turn of events, IAS officer Prasanth Nair has revealed that he is facing fresh disciplinary proceedings, just one week after he formally complained to the Chief Minister’s Office regarding serious allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets against a senior bureaucrat, Dr. Jayathilak.
Taking to Facebook, Prasanth IAS wrote a sarcastic post, “Congratulations to me again! Timely action has come, but only against me.”
The Original Complaint
The controversy began when retired school teacher and RTI activist Anil Bose Kanjirappally submitted a detailed complaint to the Vigilance Department alleging that Dr. Jayathilak, a senior IAS officer, had amassed disproportionate assets and engaged in benami (proxy) property transactions.
Prasanth IAS followed up by submitting a formal complaint to the Chief Minister, the disciplinary authority under All India Service Rule 7, demanding departmental action. He noted that the allegations were corroborated by official records from the government’s own Registration, Revenue, and Survey departments, which allegedly proved that Dr. Jayathilak had misled the government with false affidavits and suppressed property details.
Action Taken: Against the Whistleblower
Instead of action against the accused, Prasanth IAS revealed he received news from the media, of a fresh disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, at the behest of Dr. Jayathilak. The formal order was delivered today.
The new action appears to stem from Prasanth’s previous online posts where he highlighted Dr. Jayathilak’s alleged non-cooperation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) during his tenure as Finance Secretary. The officer shared documentary proof showing Dr. Jayathilak’s alleged refusal to respond to repeated letters from the CAG on audit observations.
The official charge now leveled against Prasanth is that stating the truth about the audit observations has caused “defamation to the departments.”
Constitutional and Legal Implications
Prasanth IAS strongly refuted the charge, citing sections 19(1), 13 to 21, and 24 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971. He argued that the non-cooperation with the audit process of a constitutional body like the CAG constitutes a serious, conscious, and illegal attempt to obstruct the audit process.
”If non-cooperation with the audit of a constitutional body is a government decision, if corruption is state policy, if violating the CAG Act is permissible, and if Dr. Jayathilak is ‘the Government’—then I respectfully bow to the order that he signed,” Prasanth wrote.
He concluded by questioning the perceived impunity, asking what special privilege a senior officer holds over a village assistant or traffic policeman caught taking a bribe, noting that they do not claim to be “the state” to silence critics. He ended with a powerful historical reference: “‘I am the state!’ – the delusion of being the government is a passing fantasy for many in history. Great dictators, kings, and rulers who went through this psychologically delusional phase are all dumped in the dustbin of history.”
The development has reignited public debate over accountability and the protection of officers who report corruption within the state bureaucracy. The inaction of the Chief Minister despite large scale corruption allegations against the Chief Secretary has ignited speculations about the involvement of political corruption in these matters.
