Action against Venugopal subject to final verdict: HC

New Delhi, Oct 18 (UNI) The Delhi High Court today said any action against All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Director P Venugopal would not be implemented and the decision would be subject to the final verdict on the petition which is pending in the matter.

However, the court allowed today's crucial Institute Body (IB) meeting to go ahead as scheduled.

Justice Anil Kumar said, ''The respondents--Union Government, Union Health Ministry and Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss-- are directed not to implement any adverse decision or resolution, if passed, against the petitioner-- Dr Venugopal-- till further orders regarding his tenure appointemnet and his functioning as Director of the AIIMS and any such resolution and decision shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.'' Dr Venugopal has challenged the decision of the IB to dismiss his service as unlawfull and unjustified. The petition would come up for hearing next month.

The Court permitted the IB meeting to be held today headed by Union Health Minister and Institute president Anbumani Ramadoss. The meeting will discuss various topics, including the mismanagement and alleged criticism by Dr Venugopal of the Health Minister for ''unduly intervening'' in the functioning of the premier health institute and outbreak of dengue in the Capital.

Counsel for Dr Venugopal Maninder Singh said his client's stand stood vindicated as the court did not allow the IB to decide on action without substantiating the charges with facts and through due procedure of law.

While allowing the IB to meet, the court said, ''The right of the IB to consider and transact the matter pertaining to the Institute should not be completely curtailed even in respect of appointment and termination of the tenure of the director, if permissible in law.''

Senior Counsel Arun Jaitley and Counsel Maninder Singh, appearing for Dr Venugopal, in last two days submitted that when the matter was pending with the High Court and slated for hearing on November 7, the IB meeting could not be held to oust the director on flimsy grounds. Citiing an order of the Division Bench of the High Court, Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra said the court had not debarred the IB from taking a decision in this regard.

During the anti-reservation agitation, Dr Venugopal had given a statement in a faculty meeting against the government which was unbecoming on the part of a government servant, said Mr Malhotra, justifying the move to oust the All India Institute of Medical Seciences Director.

Mr Malhotra said during the tenure of Dr Venugopal, administration at the premier institute had collapsed.

Dr Venugopal was appointed for a five-year term by the government and had been doing a good job ever since he had been at the helm of affairs, Mr Singh said.

''His reputation, which he earned ever since he joined the institute as a student at the age of 15 was at stake,'' Mr Singh added.

It was illegal and malafide to call an extraordinary meeting of the IB with a one-point agenda to oust him in the garb of discussing the outbreak of dengue in the capital, he said.

Dr Venugopal alleged that the Minister appointed A Rajasekharan, one of his close relatives, as the president of the National Board of Examination (NBE) and president of NBE Shyam Prasad was obliged with a membership of the IB.

He said a petition was pending before the High Court seeking direction for the removal of the Union Health Minister and Health Secretary P R Hota from holding posts in the Institute Governing Body.

The Court issued notices to the Government and AIIMS on an application seeking direction for removal of Mr Prasad from the IB.

UNI