Shah Faesal had submitted his resignation on January 4
Jammu: The government has not accepted the resignation of IAS officer Shah Faesal even after more than a month since he quit the civil services to join politics, according to highly placed sources in the government.
Faesal, the 2010 IAS topper, had submitted his resignation on January 4 without detailing the reasons.
The J&K Government’s website carrying the details of the in-service IAS officers lists Faesal at No. 49 (as on February 5), showing him as “pursuing a mid-career master’s programme in public administration at Edward S Mason Harvard University”.
In the normal course, his resignation should have been accepted by now as he has declared himself unshackled by the service rules that could have prevented him from airing his views, but there is no word about his resignation having been accepted.
Sources in the government said they had no problems in his joining the politics as it was his wish.
Faesal had announced his plunge into the politics on January 9, claiming that he was doing so to protest the “unabated killings in Kashmir, marginalisation of Muslims in India and the undermining of the institutions like NIA, CBI and RBI”.
In his media interviews and an aggressive campaign on the social media, he came out as a critical voice against the system. One of his salvos fired on January 28 was that the “time has come for the Kashmir resolution”.
A highly placed source said the delay in acceptance of his resignation could be because an inquiry was going on against him for his unacceptable remarks made on the social media a few months ago. It is because, the source said, if his resignation was accepted, he would be off the hook and no action could be taken against him.
The politically savvy class, however, said the government would prefer not to take any action against Faesal to avoid precipitating the matter and make him a hero. A top source in the government told The Tribune that his resignation would be accepted and remarked: “If someone wants to become a leader, why should we stop him (from doing so).”
