The Union Health Ministry, in its 20-page affidavit, indicated how Dr Venugopal who was asked to act like a government servant, did not do so. “In view of the overall assessment of the events, all efforts were made by advising the petitioner (Dr Venugopal) to conduct himself within the confines of expected conduct becoming of a government servant.” Instead Dr Venugopal was “neither communicable nor accessible”, the Centre said.

The affidavit further said “That the Faculty had also made complaints that the petitioner was not accessible even to the Faculty for redressal of their grievances and also they are directed for every problem to a Senior Financial Advisor (SFA), who was much a junior functionary and who does not have any accountability to solve the complex problems.” The SFA is Mayank Sharma, allegedly handpicked by Dr Venugopal for the post. Castigating his skills as a poor administrator, the Ministry further submitted, “During the tenure of the petitioner, about 30 faculty members left the Institute.”

On Dr Venugopal’s claims of intereference by the ministry, the Centre said: “In Government system, orders of posting and transfers of various functionaries in an organsation issued by the higher authorites cannot be construed as interference in autonomy.”

As the matter came up for hearing today, Justice Anil Kumar accepted the plea for more time by Dr Venugopal’s counsel to file their replies and posted the matter for further hearing to November 7. The Bench meanwhile, extended the stay on the decision of the IB, which had terminated Dr Venugopal as AIIMS director.

Curiously, the Government also reiterated: “It is decided to have a fresh look at the entire issue relating to the resolution passed by the IB. In view of it, the petition is liable to be dismissed.”