Begin typing your search...

Guv recommends ‘sacking’ Senthilbalaji after IT raids

K Ponmudy, who briefed media hours after Governor rejected the CM’s recommendation to change a few portfolios in the cabinet, officially disclosed that Ravi had written on May 31, asking to sack Senthilbalaji.

Guv recommends ‘sacking’ Senthilbalaji after IT raids
X

State higher education minister K Ponmudy

CHENNAI: Chief Minister M K Stalin and Governor R N Ravi locked horns over Senthilbalaji’s continuance in the state cabinet even a fortnight before the Enforcement Directorate arrested him in the transport job racket case.

State higher education minister K Ponmudy, who briefed the media hours after the Governor rejected the CM’s recommendation to change a few portfolios in the cabinet this evening, officially disclosed that Ravi had written to the CM on May 31, asking to sack Senthilbalaji.

The following day, June 1, the CM had summarily rejected the Governor’s suggestion with elaborate legal reasoning.

The Chief Minister, in his June 1 reply, cited Article 161 (1) of the Constitution, under which, only a CM elected by the people, and not the governor, has the authority to recommend or decide the inclusion/removal of a person from the cabinet, Ponmudy said, also quoting the CM as citing the example of incumbent union home minister Amit Shah continuing as the then Gujarat home minister even while many cases were pending against him in the distant past.

According to Ponmudy’s statement, Chief Minister Stalin, in the same letter, had also questioned governor Ravi as to why he put in cold storage the files seeking approval to initiate corruption cases against former AIADMK ministers. ”Probably, the governor does not have courage to answer those questions. The governor has conveniently forgotten it (the questions), covered up the CM’s June 1 dated reply, and selectively leaked this letter (Change of portfolio) of the CM. It could only be construed as cheap politics,” Ponmudy said.

It is condemnable that the governor, who swore an oath on the Constitution, remains disloyal to the Constitution and continues to engage in activities causing disrepute to an elected government.

DTNEXT Bureau
Next Story