Staring at CBI probe, leading bureaucrat in Kerala says chief minister Pinarayi to decide on his future

T'puram: KIIFB CEO and chief principal secretary to the chief minister, KM Abraham, said he would leave the decision on whether he should continue in his official roles to the Pinarayi Vijayan. Abraham's statement came in the wake of a Kerala high court order directing CBI to probe a disproportionate assets case against him.
In a note addressed to KIIFB staff, Abraham stated that many well-wishers asked whether he would consider stepping down. He said he reflected deeply and decided to place the matter entirely at the discretion of the CM, who is also the KIIFB chairman. "Whatever decision he makes, I'll abide by it with humility and gratitude," Abraham wrote.
He referred to events from 2016, when he was serving as finance secretary, and said the petitioner was subject to an official inquiry by the PWD regarding misuse of a PWD rest house in Ernakulam. He stated that a penalty was imposed on the petitioner in his report after the inspection wing found prima facie misuse of public infrastructure.
He also mentioned a separate report he submitted to the high court chief justice, as directed by the court, concerning alleged irregularities in a state PSU. He stated that two individuals named in that report had close communication with the petitioner and that call data records from that period could show regular contact between them.
Abraham said that following the high court order, a former vigilance director was giving interviews in the media against him. He said the person was prima facie named as an accused in a finance department report in a separate case involving alleged irregularities and forgery in the procurement of an item valued at approximately Rs 20 crore when he was heading a department.
On the merits of the court order, Abraham said the judgment referred to administrative lapses such as delays in filing property returns and to EMI payments on a Mumbai residence that, for a few months, exceeded his salary. He said these payments were made during his tenure at SEBI and were partially supported by documented contributions from family, with all transactions accounted for.
Abraham highlighted two issues he said were key to the decision for a CBI probe: A commercial property in Kollam and transactions in his wife's bank account.
He said the Kollam property was jointly inherited by him and his brothers and was intended for development as a commercial complex. When his savings were insufficient, he said, his brothers financed the construction and an MoU was signed stating that the returns from the building would go to them until their investments were recovered. He said this arrangement was supported by bank records and affirmed during the vigilance enquiry. He stated the court questioned this understanding on the grounds that the building remained jointly held in municipal records.
On the issue of transactions in his wife's bank account, Abraham referred to paragraph 46 of the judgment, which said the petitioner brought to the court's notice a series of transactions that gave rise to a prima facie conclusion that he acquired assets disproportionate to known sources of income. He said the judgment did not mention which specific transactions formed the basis of this inference, despite all financial records being submitted to the court.