IAS Officer N. Prasanth Cleared by Review Committee, Yet Suspension Extended Amid Allegations of Bias and Procedural Irregularities
The suspension saga of IAS officer N. Prasanth (2007 batch) has taken a controversial turn, following revelations obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Official documents show that a high-level review panel had unanimously recommended revoking his suspension, yet the order was allegedly overturned under the influence of Chief Secretary A. Jayathilak, raising serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
Panel Led by Former Chief Secretary Recommended Revocation
On April 23, 2025, a Suspension Review Committee comprising former Chief Secretary Sarada Muraleedharan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Bishwanath Sinha, and Additional Chief Secretary (Public Administration) K.R. Jyothilal, convened to review the disciplinary charges against Prasanth. According to RTI-obtained minutes, the committee found Prasanth’s explanation satisfactory and unanimously recommended lifting his suspension.
Chief Secretary Jayathilak’s Alleged Intervention Raises Eyebrows
After Sarada Muraleedharan’s retirement, A. Jayathilak took over as Chief Secretary. During his tenure, the suspension review process reportedly changed course. Despite being personally accused by Prasanth of “administrative overreach” and misconduct, Jayathilak continued to be involved in the suspension review.
Initially, Rajan Khobragade, Additional Chief Secretary, was expected to lead the review panel to avoid a conflict of interest. However, on May 3, Jayathilak issued a directive stating that no replacement was necessary and restructured the panel into a two-member committee, excluding himself.
This newly formed committee met on May 7, 2025, and ultimately decided to extend Prasanth’s suspension by another 180 days, contradicting the original recommendation.
Questions Over Procedure and Violation of Service Rules
Prasanth has strongly objected to the revised review mechanism, citing violations of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. He argues that in the Chief Secretary’s absence, the senior-most Additional Chief Secretary should have headed the committee, not a reconstituted two-member panel. This, he claims, is a procedural deviation and reflects manipulation of the disciplinary process.
Backdrop: Social Media Remarks and the ‘Unnathi’ Project
The controversy originated when Prasanth made provocative comments on social media, directly criticizing Chief Secretary Jayathilak. His post, in which he allegedly described the Chief Secretary as “mentally unstable” and a “psychopath,” was deemed gross misconduct.
At the time, Jayathilak had submitted an internal report against Prasanth regarding the ‘Unnathi’ project, a state initiative under the Chief Minister’s Office. Prasanth’s suspension was initially based on charges of insubordination and misconduct.
Wider Implications: Bureaucratic Integrity Under Spotlight
These developments have triggered a broader debate about bureaucratic accountability, transparency in disciplinary processes, and the role of senior officials in enforcing rules impartially. With mounting public scrutiny, legal experts and civil service oversight bodies are expected to weigh in on the matter—particularly on how deputation, disciplinary actions, and service rules are interpreted and applied in such politically sensitive situations.
