A report submitted by former Kerala Excise Commissioner Seeram Sambasiva Rao has triggered questions over alleged bribery, departmental accountability and the circumstances surrounding his transfer. The report reportedly names two senior Excise Department officials and refers to an alleged connection between Excise Minister M. Liju and one of the bar owners mentioned in the matter.
The allegations have not been independently established, and the report has recommended a formal Vigilance investigation.
Former Commissioner Submits Report Before Transfer
According to the report published by The 420, Rao submitted his findings to the Kerala government on Friday, shortly before being transferred from his position. He was moved to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department. Rao had also served as Special Secretary in the Electronics and Information Technology Department.
The report identifies former Joint Excise Commissioner S. Vinod and Alappuzha Deputy Commissioner Ajay in connection with alleged irregularities involving bar owners. It also states that Excise Minister M. Liju was acquainted with one of the business owners referred to in the allegations.
The timing of the report and Rao’s subsequent transfer have added to the political and administrative questions surrounding the case.
Alleged Monthly Payments and Licence-Related Bribery
One set of allegations concerns a bar owner in Muvattupuzha. The report reportedly claims that S. Vinod maintained close links with the owner and acted as an intermediary in matters relating to the establishment’s licence.
An informant cited in the report alleged that Vinod demanded a monthly payment of ₹30,000. The report also refers to an alleged payment of ₹50,000 in connection with approvals concerning operating hours and licence extensions.
A separate allegation relates to a bar in Kayamkulam. According to the report, its owner, identified as Ratheesh, was allegedly asked to pay ₹30,000 during inspections conducted by Deputy Commissioner Ajay. The report further claims that another ₹20,000 was paid after Onam in connection with licence renewal.
These claims concern alleged transactions and do not, by themselves, establish that the officials or business owners committed an offence. Their accuracy and the circumstances surrounding the alleged payments would need to be examined by the competent authorities.
Rao Recommends Vigilance Investigation and Administrative Changes
Rao reportedly recommended that Vinod and Ajay be removed from field postings and transferred to offices such as the Excise Crime Records Bureau or the Toddy Board.
He also sought a Vigilance investigation into alleged monthly collections, financial irregularities and possible disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Beyond the specific allegations, the report called for tighter oversight of appointments to sensitive departmental positions. It recommended that postings at the levels of Joint Excise Commissioner, Additional Excise Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner take account of reports from the Excise Commissioner, particularly when allegations of financial misconduct have been raised against officials.
If adopted, such measures could strengthen internal oversight of sensitive regulatory responsibilities. However, the report’s recommendations should not be confused with findings from a completed investigation.
Political Questions Over Minister's Role and Commissioner’s Transfer
The matter has also drawn a political response from CPI(M) State secretary M.V. Govindan. He reportedly questioned the Minister’s alleged connections with officials named in the report and bar owners associated with the alleged payments.
Govindan also claimed that Rao had faced pressure that prevented him from transferring certain officials. He questioned the circumstances of the former commissioner’s departure, referring to reports that Rao left in an autorickshaw while his official vehicle remained behind. Govindan described the incident as a possible expression of protest and demanded an explanation from the Minister.
The claims about pressure and the circumstances of Rao’s departure remain allegations and political assertions in the supplied report. No immediate response from Minister Liju or the bar owners named was reported in the article.
What Happens Next?
The key question is whether the Kerala government will order the recommended Vigilance investigation and examine the alleged payments, licensing decisions and financial records. An impartial inquiry would be necessary to establish whether any misconduct occurred and whether responsibility extends beyond the officials identified in the report.
The case also highlights the importance of transparent licensing procedures, documented inspections and safeguards against improper influence in regulatory departments. For organisations operating in regulated sectors, strong internal controls, reliable financial records and clear compliance processes are important elements of accountability. Businesses seeking support in these areas can explore Shunyatax's auditing services in India.
For now, the allegations remain unproven. Any conclusions about the officials, Minister or business owners named should await the findings of a formal investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings.