Dismissed¶106

Neelaveni Ramachandran, v. National Bank for Agriculture

Madras HC7 Nov 2025WP/26475/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay/laches — writ petition dismissed for unexplained ~6-year delay in challenging NABARD dismissal (office order No.89 dated 19.06.2004; appellate confirmation 28.04.2005); Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction withheld. Jurisdiction over employee on deputation — lending authority (NABARD) permitted to discipline; borrowing authority cannot itself take disciplinary action; deputation to ADFT as Managing Director; failure to implead ADFT; severance plea rejected. Merits — charges held admitted: Rs.50 lakh ICD roll-over contrary to Board instruction; payments to interested persons; borrowings enabling misuse of Rs.1,44,59,412/- by then Vice-President K.Srinivasan; certiorari refused; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded. ¶106

Neelaveni Ramachandran, Vs National Bank for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

¶106

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed in 2011 after a lapse of about 6 years from the appellate order of 28.04.2005, could be entertained in the exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the delay. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

The petitioner kept quiet for more than 6 years after the dismissal and its confirmation; she justified the delay only up to 2007 and furnished no reasons for the delay from 2007 to 2011. Being thus not diligent, she was held not entitled to invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 belatedly; on this ground alone the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The contention that appointment as Managing Director of ADFT severed the petitioner's employment relationship with NABARD was rejected: she took no objection when suspended on 10.07.1999 or when the charge sheet was issued on 25.07.2000, placed no material (such as her order of appointment) showing severance, and did not contradict the counter affidavit's stand (Paragraph No.6(i)) that she was sent on deputation to ADFT.

¶56

Key takeaways

Noting the settled law that a borrowing authority has no power to take disciplinary action against an employee on deputation (though it may enquire and report to, or request action by, the lending authority), the Court found nothing to show NABARD acted on its own without any request from ADFT, observed that the petitioner chose not to implead ADFT, and declined to accept both jurisdictional contentions raised on her behalf.ratio¶68
On a merits examination of the charges and explanations (including charge 3(ii)(c) regarding roll-over of an ICD of Rs.50 lakh for M/s.SSIEL contrary to the Board's specific instruction, and charges 3(ii)(e)(iii)/(iv) regarding payments and borrowings connected with misuse of funds by the then Vice-President K. Srinivasan), the Court found the petitioner had directly or indirectly admitted the allegations and had admitted her guilt, so no interference with the impugned proceedings was warranted.ratio¶100

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (single Judge) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 by a former General Manager of NABARD challenging her dismissal by office order No.89 dated 19.06.2004, confirmed on appeal by order dated 28.04.2005, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings arising while she was on deputation as Managing Director of ADFT. Held: (i) the petitioner approached the Court after a lapse of about 6 years; she explained the delay only up to 2007 (health issues and depression; meeting her counsel on 28.05.2007 at Komarapalayam) and gave no reasons for the delay from 2007 to 2011, so she was not entitled to invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 — sufficient by itself to dismiss the petition; (ii) her plea that appointment as Managing Director of ADFT severed her NABARD employment failed, as she raised no objection at the suspension or charge-sheet stage, placed no material proving severance, and did not contradict the counter affidavit's stand that she was sent on deputation; (iii) applying the principle that a borrowing authority cannot itself take disciplinary action against a deputationist, and noting that ADFT was not impleaded, both jurisdictional objections were rejected; (iv) on merits, the charges — including roll-over of a Rs.50 lakh ICD for M/s.SSIEL against the Board's specific instruction, payments to interested persons, and borrowings connected with misuse of Rs.1,44,59,412/- by the then Vice-President K. Srinivasan — were found directly or indirectly admitted, warranting no interference. Petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

W.P. No.26475 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 08.08.2025

¶4

Pronounced on : 07.11.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.26475 of 2011

¶8

Neelaveni Ramachandran

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.National Bank For Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Sterling Centre

¶12

Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Post Box No.6552 Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.

¶13

2.The Chief General Manager Enquiry Officer Sterling Centre Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Post Box No.6552 Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in office order No.89 dated 19^th June 2004 issued under Letter NB/CVC/293/14/2004-05 dated 21.06.2004 and confirm by the order NB CVC/54/14/2005-06 dated 28.04.2005 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam

¶16

Page No.1 of 18

Charges	Explanation
3.(ii)(c) Although the then Chairman	10) Reference Para 3(ii) (c): At the
of the Company, in the 12th Board meeting	material time where the roll over of the
held on 13 April 1998, had expressed the	Inter Corporate Deposits was allowed,
view that ICDs with M/s. SSIEL should	efforts were on to get some security
not have been rolled over and the Board	from the borrowing company, so as to
thereupon had decided against any further	strengthen the hands of ADFT. I was
roll-over of the ICDs, you had once again	afraid that any effort to deny roll over
rolled over the ICD for Rs. 50 lakh, due on	would militate against such efforts and
04 May 1998, in blatant contravention of	adversely affect the interest of ADFT.
the Board's specific instructions not to do	Here again, the decision was taken in
so. You had also not kept the Board	good faith and I had no intention
informed about the roll-over.	whatsoever to bypass or violate the
	instructions of the Board. Subsequently,
	the Board was kept informed of roll
	over and the reasons therefor. The
	decision regarding the roll over was a
	pure and simple Commercial/ Business decision.

Sr Bank Curren	t	Cheque Payee's Amount
No. /Branch Accou No.	nt	No. Name (Rs.)
------ --------- --------	---	--------- ---------- -------
01. Kancheepuram		P.M.
CCB 87	5	13180 Jayaraman 3,50,000/-
Madipakkam Branch
02. Kancheepuram
CCB		P. 3,50,000/-
Madipakkam 87 Branch	51	3873 Vijayalakshmi
03. Bank of
Madura,		H. 17,00,000/-
Teynampet, 28110	95	7273 Hajamohideen
Anna Salai		& N S Ishack

Charges	Explanation
3.(ii).(e)(iv) It is observed that on	16) Reference Para3 (ii) (e) (iv): I
several occasions the Company had	deny the charge that I had allowed the
borrowed, or you allowed borrowings on	borrowings on behalf of the company
behalf of the Company, against security of the Company's F.Ds without satisfying yourself of the need for such borrowings and also failed to verify the end use of such borrowings. Consequently, amounts	without satisfying myself of the need of the borrowings and also failed to verify the end use of such borrowings. The misutilisation of funds to the tune of Rs. 1,44,59,412 by Sri K.Srinivasan
aggregating about Rs.1,44,59,412/- were	was an act, solely and individually
misused by Mr. K Srinivasan, the then	committed by him without my
Vice President of the Company as per	knowledge in connivance with the
details given in Annexure I-A. Thus, you	officials of the KCCB branch. As you
committed acts of gross negligence,	are aware, all the associated
indifference and indolence which resulted	documents relating to the Current
in financial loss to the Company.	Account and Fixed Deposits were concocted, forged, or got prepared by
	the then Vice president Sri K.
	Srinivasan on his own to conceal the
	misappropriation of funds committed
	by him and to mislead the officials,
	auditors and the other staff of the
	Company. It is unfortunate that the
	instead of fixing the responsibility on
	Sri K. Srinivasan, for the aforesaid
	acts the Bank has chosen to accuse me of the same.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

S.Baskaran, Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

Padma Vs Dhanapal

Ranga Mooper Vs Murugesan

K. Kumar Deshraj Vs the General Manager

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, I.a.S., Vs C.Rengaswami

S.Kalaichelvan Vs Thiru. Gunasekaran and another