Kerala's UDF government revoked the suspension of IAS officers N Prashant and B Ashok, who were suspended for criticising the administration via social media. Disciplinary proceedings will continue.

Kerala's UDF government revoked the suspension of IAS officers N Prashant and B Ashok, who were suspended for criticising the administration via social media. Disciplinary proceedings will continue.

Kerala's UDF government revoked the suspension of IAS officers N Prashant and B Ashok, who were suspended for criticising the administration via social media. Disciplinary proceedings will continue.

The Kerala government on Sunday ordered the revocation of the suspension of IAS officers N Prashant and B Ashok. The two officers had been placed under suspension by the previous LDF government for publicly criticising the administration, with the government maintaining that their actions violated social media and service conduct rules.

After examining the matter, the UDF government decided to reinstate both officers and directed that their suspensions be revoked. The order stated that the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against them would continue in accordance with the relevant service rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

Prashant was initially suspended in 2024 after raising serious allegations of corruption and administrative misconduct against senior bureaucrats, including Chief Secretary A Jayathilak and former Chief Secretary Sarada Muraleedharan. Days before his suspension was due to expire, the former LDF government issued a fresh order on May 2 continuing it, marking his eighth suspension.

However, Prashant alleged that the suspension was a direct consequence of his efforts to expose corruption within the state administration and denied that the action was related to any violation of social media rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier, Prashant had accused Jayathilak of absenteeism, claiming that records obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act showed that the Chief Secretary attended office for fewer than five days a month over a period of nearly two years. He also referred to the Muttil tree-felling case in Wayanad, alleging that a controversial order issued by Jayathilak had led to losses of more than ₹12 crore worth of valuable timber. Prashant further claimed that, after becoming Chief Secretary, Jayathilak ensured that cases against him were closed.

In addition, Prashant criticised former Chief Secretary Sarada Muraleedharan for allegedly failing to act against corrupt officers during her tenure, stating that she lacked the "moral courage" to take action.

ADVERTISEMENT

Similarly, Ashok's suspension order cited a series of public statements, comments and communications made through print, visual, electronic and social media platforms concerning the policies, functioning and actions of the state government and its departments. The government argued that these actions amounted to a breach of discipline.

The suspension came after a chain of legal battles between the officers and the state government before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In March, the CAT quashed multiple transfer orders issued to Ashok. The tribunal ruled that all postings and transfers of IAS officers, irrespective of whether they had completed the minimum tenure of two years in a post, should be made only on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board (CSB).

Ashok, who was serving as Agriculture Principal Secretary, was transferred and appointed Agriculture Production Commissioner (APC) on February 7, 2023. Before completing the minimum tenure of two years in the post, he was transferred on January 9, 2025, to the Local Self Government Department. He was also directed to take charge of a newly created post in the Local Self Government Reforms Commission without his consent, which he argued was required under the rules.

The former LDF government had maintained that the conduct of both Prashant and Ashok violated the restraint, discretion and political neutrality expected of members of the All India Services. According to the government, both officers made public comments without obtaining the required permission from the state government.