Thiruvananthapuram: M Sivasankar, the former principal secretary to the Chief Minister who has been suspended for his alleged links to the accused in the gold smuggling case, enjoyed a lot of sway in the CM’s office. He not only had the complete trust of the chief minister, but he also looked into the files of the departments that Pinarayi Vijayan handled and also of other ministers.
The chief minister trusted him so much that he would seek Sivansakar’s opinion in almost all files that went to him.
Although the Chief Minister had a number of advisers, another principal secretary and private secretaries, he always took a decision on important files only after consulting Sivasankar. As a result, his sway extended to the Departments of Revenue, Disaster Management, Rebuild Kerala, Health, Transport and Ports.
While most departments keep quiet, given his closeness to the chief minister, only the Revenue Minister and the CPI protested against this publicly.
It was only after the catastrophic floods that Sivasankar became interested in the disaster management department. His interest then extended to Rebuild Kerala, a plan announced by the state government to rehabilitate those affected by floods.
It was under Sivasankar's direction that CDT was shifted to the IT department from the PRD, which was headed by the Chief Minister.
The main function of the principal secretary was to advise the Chief Minister in making decisions on various files.
According to the Secretariat Manual, only the secretary of a department could write in a file. Therefore, the principal secretary to the Chief Minister could not write anything on the file one which his opinion sought. He, therefore, would give his opinions in a separate note and send it to the chief minister along with the file.
The Chief Minister handles 26 departments, including home affairs, and subjects that are not assigned to any minister. As a result, Sivasankar could interfere in the matters of all these departments.
Most ministers would leave their department files concerning police decisions and those that had to be submitted to the Cabinet, with the chief minister.
Matters affecting multiple departments and those related to key officials could only pass through the chief minister. Most ministers were peeved that no action could be taken on the files concerning their departments without Sivasankar giving his opinion. Most of them thought that Sivasankar’s instructions were being carried out with the knowledge of the Chief Minister and, therefore, did not show any resentment.
In the IT department, since he was the secretary, Sivasankar could take his own decisions and write directly on the files.
He also tried to get people from the IT department appointed in other departments.
He would convene a meeting under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister and take decisions and then issue orders and instructions saying the decisions were taken in the meeting. Even though he had to deal with the workload of two posts, he always found time to look at all the related files.
Sivasankar got caught up about half-a-dozen controversies after he took charge at the Chief Minister’s Office, like the effort to bring in KPMG as a consultant for the Rebuild Kerala Initiative, the problems that the BevQ app faced when it was launched for sale of liquor after the COVID lockdown was eased, the complaints against the app developed under an initiative of the IT department to give compensation for people affected by floods and the Sprinklr controversy when the state government was winning praise for the way it was dealing with COVID.
But he always had the backing of Pinarayi Vijayan.
He faced opposition when he tried to interfere in the affairs of the Revenue Department under the CPI. His attempt to amend the Disaster Management Act was stalled by the Revenue Minister. The CPI also expressed his strong displeasure when an attempt was made to shift the disaster management authority from the revenue department to the local bodies.
The CPI also accused Sivasankar of blocking the plan to digitise the Revenue Department.
The CPI often approached the chief minister with complaints against Sivasankar.
The diplomatic baggage gold smuggling case erupted when the state government was already mired in a controversy over the e-bus project, appointing PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as consultants for the scheme and also allowing them to open an office in the secretariat.
State can suspend bureaucrats facing criminal inquiry
Thiruvananthapuram: According to central government guidelines, the state government has the authority to suspend an All India Service officer facing investigation or trial in a criminal case.
The government has the power to suspend a person who has been in custody for a criminal offence for more than two days, who has faced imprisonment for more than 2 days or has been found guilty of anti-national activities.
There are also restrictions on dealing with officials at foreign consulates.
