AIIMS chief P Venugopal sought to turn the tables on A Ramadoss seeking his disqualification as MP accusing him of holding an 'office of profit' as AIIMS president.
NEW DELHI: Challenging the move for his removal, AIIMS chief P Venugopal on Thursday sought to turn the tables on Union Health Minister A Ramadoss seeking his disqualification as MP accusing him of holding an 'office of profit' as AIIMS president.
The Government, however, told the Delhi High Court that it was willing to withdraw the order recommending Venugopal's sacking provided he relinquished the post on his own.
Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Union Government, also gave an undertaking to the court that the July 5 resolution of the Institute's Governing Council authorising the Director's termination would not be effected till the issue was settled by the court.
Earlier, in the day in his petition filed through counsel Abhinav Mukherji, Venugopal while terming the decision to sack him as 'illegal and unsustainable' sought disqualification of Ramadoss from Parliament as, according to him, the Minister attracted disqualification under Article 102 since he was holding an "Office of profit" by being AIIMS President.
The petition stated the Minister and several of his personal staff including his OSD, a former police officer from Tamil Nadu, were receiving pecuniary benefits from the AIIMS in the form of salaries and perks.
While Subramaniam said a mutually dignified parting of ways was possible if the Director relinquished the post on his own, senior Counsel and former Union Minister Arun Jaitley, appearing for Venugopal, rejected the offer saying the issue involved autonomy of the institute on which there would be no compromise.
At this stage Justice Anil Kumar asked Jaitley to examine the offer and report back to the court on Friday.
Earlier, Jaitley argued that the proposed termination of the Director was an illegal and malafide action of the Minister.
Citing the apex court ruling in the L P Agarwal's case, he submitted that once an incumbent was appointed to a tenure post, he or she cannot be removed without justifiable grounds.
Venugopal, was appointed for a five-year period and his removal without even complying with the mandatory requirements of issuing a three months notice was not complied with by the Government, Jaitley complained.
Such an action on the part of the minister and the Government was arbitrary, negation of principles of natural justice and violation of a citizen's Fundamental Rights, he maintained.
However, Subramaniam citing Regulation 31 of the AIIMS Act contended that the institute was well within its powers to remove the director before the tenure period, if such removal is required in public interest.
Subramaniam, while remarking that certain required procedures like issuance of notice might not have been observed in the present case, yet the Government he asserted had the legal competence to terminate the services of the Director. The arguments would resume further on Friday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}