In late January 2026, a government officer in Ayodhya made headlines not once, but twice. Prashant Kumar Singh, who worked as Deputy Commissioner for GST in the holy city, resigned from his position on January 27. His reason? He said he was deeply hurt by comments made by a religious leader, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Singh wrote in his resignation letter that he could not continue serving a government that was being insulted.
At first glance, this might seem like a story of principles where an officer takes a stand for his beliefs. But there's another layer to this story, one that raises uncomfortable questions about honesty, fairness, and what happens when people game a system meant to help those who truly need it.
Just as Singh's resignation was making waves, another allegation surfaced. His own elder brother, Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, has accused him of using a fake disability certificate to get his government job in the first place. The certificate, reportedly issued in 2009, claimed Singh had a 40 percent disability, which is a condition that would have allowed him to apply for government positions under the disability quota, a system designed to give opportunities to people with genuine disabilities.
Dr. Vishwajeet Singh didn't stay silent. He filed a complaint back in 2021, asking authorities to re-examine his brother's disability certificate. That complaint has now grown into a formal investigation involving multiple agencies, where the Chief Medical Officer of Mau district, the Health Department, and the Divyangjan Ayog, which looks after the rights and welfare of people with disabilities.
Two Brothers, One Bitter Dispute
Family disputes can be messy, but when they involve allegations of fraud in public service, they become everyone's concern. Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's complaint isn't vague; he has specifically challenged whether his younger brother ever had the disability he claimed. According to the Chief Medical Officer of Mau, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Prashant Kumar Singh was called twice to appear before a medical board that could verify his disability. Both times, he didn't show up.
This detail is important. If Singh truly had a disability, why wouldn't he appear for verification? Medical experts say the condition mentioned in the certificate relates to an eye problem, something unusual in people under fifty years old. Without a proper examination by specialists, the truth remains unclear.
Dr. Gupta has been clear that the investigation is following proper procedures and that no external pressure is influencing the process. He emphasised that only an expert medical board can determine whether the disability was real or fabricated. The investigation is ongoing, and decisions about what happens next will come from higher authorities once all the facts are gathered.
Meanwhile, Dr. Vishwajeet Singh has asked for the probe to be expanded into a full judicial investigation. He suspects his brother's sudden resignation might not be about hurt feelings over religious comments at all; it might be a strategy to escape scrutiny. If the allegations turn out to be true, Singh could face serious consequences, including having to pay back salaries and benefits he received under false pretences.
Timing That Raises Eyebrows
The timing of Singh's resignation is striking. Just days before Republic Day, another officer, Bareilly City Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri, had resigned, citing his disagreement with government policies and alleged mistreatment of religious followers at a major religious gathering. Agnihotri was quickly suspended by the state government.
Singh's resignation came shortly after, and soon, people began asking questions. Was this really about religious sentiment? Or was there something else going on? Some reports suggest Singh had long meetings with senior administrative officials at his office after submitting his resignation. What was discussed in those meetings remains unknown, but it has fuelled speculation.
Social media lit up with theories. Some suggested Singh might be planning to enter politics, perhaps hoping to ride a wave of public sympathy. Others pointed out the convenient timing of resigning just as a serious investigation into his credentials was gaining momentum. None of these theories has been confirmed, but they show how public trust erodes when actions don't match words.
Looking Ahead
The investigation will continue, and eventually, the truth will emerge. If Singh's disability certificate turns out to be genuine, he will be justified. If it's found to be fraudulent, he should face the full consequences under the law, not just for his own actions, but as a message that public service cannot be built on lies.
What bothers anyone about this most about this case is not just the possibility of fraud, but the way it exploits a system meant for good. Disability quotas are acts of social justice, attempts to level a playing field that's naturally uneven. When people cheat their way through such provisions, they don't just harm themselves, they harm every person with a genuine disability who needs that support.
As this story unfolds in Ayodhya, a city sacred to millions, perhaps it's worth reflecting on a deeper truth of integrity in public life, which isn't just about following rules when it's convenient. It's about being honest even when no one is watching, even when the stakes are high, and even when telling the truth might cost us something. That's the standard we should expect from those who serve in our name, and that's the question at the heart of this case about did Prashant Kumar Singh meet that standard, or did he take a shortcut that betrayed public trust? The answer matters not just for him, but for all of us.
. . .
References: