Two senior public servants conspired to have the former chairman of CIE, Mr Dermot O'Leary, removed from his post in 1995, it was claimed in the High Court yesterday.
In an affidavit from a former CIE board member, Mr Anthony Rooney, it was alleged the then minister for transport, energy and communications, Mr Michael Lowry, was "delighted to go along with" the conspiracy.
Mr O'Leary is seeking to bring a High Court claim that Mr John Loughrey, the then secretary of the Department and now secretary at the Department of Public Enterprise, and Mr Michael McDonnell, the current group chief executive of CIE, had him fired.
The claim is denied, and last night Mr McDonnell issued a statement saying Mr Rooney's allegations against him were "utterly untrue".
He said: "Mr Rooney in his affidavit makes certain references about what purports to have happened at the CIE board meeting on May 3rd, 1995. These are at variance with the official record of that meeting."
Mr McDonnell said he was prepared to swear an affidavit through the CIE solicitor to "clear my good name and that of CIE through the courts".
In his affidavit read to the court, Mr Rooney said Mr McDonnell had told him Mr Lowry was "an idiot" who only "wants his face in the media" and was "delighted to go along with it".
He said that at the CIE board meeting in 1995 the new chairman, Mr Eamon Walsh, said he had three names - A, B and C - for the new chief executive. Mr Walsh said A and B were not suitable and Mr Michael McDonnell was C. Mr Walsh had said: "I have never met him but they tell me we will be a dream team. I am proposing to you that he will be the next chief executive of CIE."
Mr Mel Christle SC, for Mr O'Leary, asked Mr Justice Kelly for leave to amend the challenge to his removal to include a claim for conspiracy. In March 1996 Mr O'Leary secured leave to challenge his removal.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Mr Lowry and the State, asked the judge to refuse the application on the grounds of delay in bringing it, failure to make full disclosure in affidavits, and the irrelevance of the conspiracy claim to the substantive case.