Ministry of Transport, Highways, and Urban Development Secretary Prof. Kapila Perera formally tendered his resignation on Friday (29) in the wake of a high-profile Supreme Court ruling against him, although ministry officials dismissed speculation that the resignation was linked to the verdict.
A senior official attached to the Ministry of Transport, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Sunday Morning that Perera had stepped down for personal reasons and not as a result of the court ruling.
“He had planned to submit his resignation due to a separate academic programme in the US, where he had planned an eight-month stint. This had already been communicated and is entirely a personal matter. There is no connection to the Supreme Court ruling. He is an academic and he did not wish to abandon his academic commitments,” the official claimed.
The departure has raised questions over the immediate future of the ministry’s administrative leadership. The official clarified that Prof. Perera intended to return to Sri Lanka after completing his academic programme.
“He will be coming back after eight months, but you cannot leave the position of secretary vacant for that entire period. Therefore, he submitted his resignation, but he may return and rejoin as secretary again. Until he returns, or a permanent decision is made, we will have to appoint an acting secretary. As of now, there is no decision as to who will assume the role,” the official added.
The reported resignation came days after the Supreme Court ruled that Prof. Perera had violated the Fundamental Rights of a senior public official by preventing him from carrying out his duties as an Additional Secretary at the ministry.
In a judgment delivered on 19 May, the Supreme Court held that Prof. Perera, in his capacity as Secretary to the then Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation, had infringed the fundamental rights of W.S. Sathyananda, a Special Grade officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service.
The ruling followed an extended hearing into a Fundamental Rights petition filed by Sathyananda, who challenged the treatment he said he faced after being appointed Additional Secretary to the ministry.
The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere, with the concurrence of Justices Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Janak De Silva.
According to the petition, Sathyananda, a public officer with nearly 30 years of service, had been appointed Additional Secretary through a letter issued by the Ministry of Public Administration on 18 December 2024 and had reported for duty on the same day.
He told the court that at around 12.30 p.m. on the day he assumed duties, Prof. Perera had entered his office and informed him that his services were not required by the ministry, instructing him to leave immediately.
The petitioner argued that the conduct of the Ministry Secretary towards a senior public official had caused him humiliation and severe mental distress, amounting to an arbitrary violation of his Fundamental Rights.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Obeyesekere observed that under Rule 107 of the Public Service Commission (PSC) Rules, published in Extraordinary Gazette No.2310/29 of 14 December 2022, the authority to appoint an additional secretary rested exclusively with the PSC.
The court further noted that Rule 61 of the same regulations stipulated that any person who directly or indirectly sought to influence or obstruct a decision of the PSC or one of its committees, other than in the lawful discharge of duties, committed an offence punishable by a fine of up to Rs. 100,000, imprisonment of up to seven years, or both.
The Supreme Court concluded that by interfering with a lawful appointment made by the PSC, the Ministry Secretary had seriously undermined the rule of law and breached the public trust placed in him.
The court emphasised that public officials were custodians of public trust and were expected to exercise their powers responsibly and in accordance with the law. It further held that the supervisory authority vested in a ministry secretary did not extend to appropriating the constitutional powers granted to the PSC in matters relating to appointments and transfers.
The court ultimately found that the respondent Secretary had deprived the petitioner of the dignity due to him as both an individual and a public officer, and unanimously ruled that his Fundamental Right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated.