Thiruvananthapuram: The govt has suspended senior IAS officer N Prasanth from service, yet again, pending disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against him. He is already under suspension for over one and a half years now.The latest action follows a preliminary assessment that the officer, during March and April this year, made a series of public statements across print, visual, electronic and social media platforms on matters relating to govt policies, administration and governance. According to the order, these statements included comments on administrative processes, policy priorities and public governance, and were widely circulated.The govt noted that, on a prima facie basis, the tenor and context of these communications “appeared inconsistent with the standards of restraint, discretion and political neutrality” expected of members of the All India Services. It also stated that some of the communications were allegedly made without prior permission where such approval was required under service rules. The order said the cumulative effect of such statements “could potentially affect public confidence” in the administration and impact perceptions of neutrality and discipline. It clarified that the findings are preliminary and subject to detailed examination in formal disciplinary proceedings.The govt further stated that continuation of the officer in service may not be conducive to a fair inquiry, citing the possibility of influencing witnesses or access to official records, and ordered that he remain under suspension. The order was issued by chief secretary A Jayathilak on Saturday. The officer will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules.Notably, the suspension order is almost identical in structure, reasoning and grounds to the one issued earlier against B Ashok. Both cases are based on complaints from the same petitioners — Sajeev Divakaran and K O Asokan — and cite similar allegations relating to public statements on govt policies and administration. The reasoning, including references to violation of conduct rules, concerns over political neutrality, and the need to ensure a fair inquiry, is largely the same in both orders.“The suspension order is stated to be based on complaints filed by two private individuals. However, any alleged violation of conduct rules is a matter to be addressed between the employer and the employee. When action is initiated based on a third-party complaint, the basic principle of natural justice requires that the person concerned be heard before such action is taken. In this case, that has not been done,” Prasanth said, responding to the latest development.
