HC didn146;t agree with Ramadoss: Venugopal sacking not justified

Even perusing the text of Venugopal8217;s speech, which he made during the medicos strike, the court maintained, 8220;Perusal of the text reveals that prime facie it cannot be termed as criticism of the Government or any other act done so as to entail consequences under Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules.8221;

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, in his arguments, contended that 8220;the decision to remove the director is justifiable as he had miserably failed as a director, as two representations were received against him which show his administrative incapability.8221;

But Justice Anil Kumar said, 8220;The allegation of director8217;s miserable failure was not even put up before the members of the governing body for their deliberation and consideration. 8221; He said the Ministry cannot justify the removal of the director on grounds other than what was before the governing body. 8220;The petitioner has been able to make out a prime facie case that termination of his tenure post is vitiated under law,8221; the judge said.

Restraining the Centre from passing further orders on the decision, he said: 8220;Ouster of such an eminent doctor, whose professional eminence, fortunately has not been even disputed by the respondents, may be a great loss not only to the institution but to the general public at large.8221;

8220;The inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances is that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner Venugopal8221; he said.