DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 29-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER 
NOVEMBER 29, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Service Law-Officials of DDA found to be guilty of colluding ivith a 
builder-contractor to cause loss to DDA and members of public in an inves-
tigation conducted at the behest of Supreme Court-Court directing discipli-
C nary proceedings against the guilty officials-Other courts and authorities 
restrained from interfering with the disciplinary proceedings. 
On 29.11.1994, this Court requested a former Judge of this Court, to 
investigate into the conduct of the officials of Delhi Development Authority 
(D.D.A.) in handing over possession of certain land to the respondent 
D company (a builder) without receiving the auction amount in full and also 
conniving with the respondent company and allowing construction on the 
said land. The action of the officials of the Delhi Development Authority 
caused loss of public money and also loss to those who acted on the 
advertisements of the respondent company. Certain other irregularities 
E were also to be enquired into by the learned Judge. 
The report submitted by the learned Judge held certain officials of 
the Delhi Development Authority guilty of perpetuating irregulariti~s in 
collusion with each other. The report found the officials guilty of flouting 
the Orders of the then Lt. Governor of Delhi and acting against the interest 
F 
of Delhi Development Authority by helping the respondent company to 
defraud t}le Delhi Development Authority as well as the members of public. 
. In another enquiry conducted by it, C.B.I., also confirmed the commission 
of irregularities hut opined that no malafide could be attributed to any 
official. 
G 
This Court, after giving notice to the parties before it, directed 
institution of appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the indicated 
officials and 
HELD : I. A democratic Government does not mean a lax Govern-, 
H ment. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not 
782 
.. 
-
·. 
D.D.A. v. SKIPPER CONTN. 
783 
meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The A 
wheels of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is the duty of all of us 
to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truely. The justice 
system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless. [787-A-B] 
2.1. The conclusions arrived at by the Learned Judge are entitled to 
great weight and constitute sufticient basis for initiating disciplinary action 
against the ofiicers concerned. The Report points out how the several 
ofticers of the D.D.A. flouted the orders of the Lt. Governor, acted against 
the interest of D.D.A. and how they, by their several acts, helped the respon-
dent in achieving its nefarious design to defraud both the D.D.A. and the 
innocent members of the public. [786-E-F] 
2.2. So far as the members of the public are concerned, they lost 
heavily because they believed in and acted upon the several advertisements 
and proclamations made by the respontlent company. This could not have 
happened but for the active connivance and collusion of some of the otlicers 
B 
c 
of the D.D.A. The interest of justice demand that the ofiicers found indulg-
D 
ing in such acts be proceeded against and dealt \\ith sternly so that it may 
serve as a lesson to others. No court or authority shall be competent to 
intradict or otherwise interfere mth the disciplinary or other proceedings 
that may be taken against the aforesaid authorities pursuant to this Order. 
Any further directions necessary in that behalf can be sought for from this 
Court. The disciplinary proceedings shall be commenced within three 
months and shall be concluded mthin one year. [786-G-H; 788-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c) 
No. 21000 of 1993. 
E 
From the Judgment and order dated 9.12.93 of the Delhi High Court F 
in Suit No. 770/93. 
Arun Jaitley, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Raju Ramachandran for the 
Petitioner. 
D.D. Thakur, V.A. Bobde, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Rachna Joshi G 
Issar and KC. Dua (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
By Order dated November 29, 1994, a Bench of this Court (P.B. 
Sawant, S. Mohan, J.T. and one of us, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) requested Mr. H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy, former Judge of this Court"to investigate into 
the conduct of the officials o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.