DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER

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.

     meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The
                                                                                783


     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
                                                                                       A


     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   B
     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]
                                                                                       c
            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
     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 E
     months and shall be concluded mthin one year. [786-G-H; 788-F]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c)
     No. 21000 of 1993.

           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 of the D.D.A. including its ex-officio Chairman
  at the relevant time, in handing over the possession of the suit-land in M/s.
  Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. before receiving the auction amount in full
  and also in conniving at the construction thereon as well as at the adver-
B tisenients given by it for booking the premises in the building in question."
  The learned Judge was also asked to "look into the legality and propriety
  of the order dt. 4.10.1988 passed by the then ex-officio Chairman of the
  D.D.A. and the directions given by the Central Government under Section
  41 of the Delhi Development Authority Act." The context in which the said
  Order was made is explained in the judgment dated January 25, 1995
C rendered by the said Bench. Pursuant lf:o the said request, Mr. Justice
  Chinnappa Reddy held an enquiry and has submitted his report dated July
  7, 1995. After receipt of the report, notice was given to the parties before
  us to assist us in the matter of passing appropriate orders on the basis of
  the said report. In particular, we requested Sri Raju Ramachandran,
D Advocate, to assist us in formulating the appropriate directions in the
  matter. Copies of the report were made available to all the learned counsel
  concerned herein. We heard them on November 17,1995:

        Paragraph 59 of the Report contains a summary of the conclusions
  arrived at by the learned Judge. So far as the period January, 1981 to
E March, 1982 is concerned, the· learned Judge found Sri S.C. Dikshit,
  Director (C.L.) and Sri V.S. Ailawadi, Vice- Chairman, responsible for
  several irrgularities. The learned Judge stated that both of them sacrificed
  the interest of D .DA. and went on recommending and granting extensions
  for which there was abso1utely no justification. The learned Judge also
F found that such repeated extensions were in violation of the terms and
  conditions of auction and Unauthorised by any statutory power. or resolu-
  tion of the D.D.A. So far as the period March, 1982 to May, 1982 is
  concerned, the learned Judge found that Sri K.S. Baidwan, Secretary to the
  Lt. Governor, Sri V.S. Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman and Sri Virender Nath,
  Commissioner colluded together and stalled the implementation of the
G order of the Lt. Governor, Sri S.L. Khurana directing cancellation of the
  bid and thereby facilitated M/s. Skipper Construction Company to obtain
  an order of stay from the Civil Court. The learned Judge further found that
  though the D.D.A. did adopt a resolution as far back as may 14, 1984
  accepting the recominendations of the Committee (Appointed by it) devis-
H ing a scheme for recovering the balance amount due from Skipper in
                       D.D.A. v. SKIPPER CONTN.                       785

instalments in view of the subsequent developments, Sri R.S. Sethi, Com- A
missioner (Lands) designedly delayed the execution of the agreement
 thereby enabling Skipper to dupe the innocent members of the public by
selling the same space in the proposed building to more than one person.
The learned Judge also found that Sri Prem Kumar, Vice-Chairman, was
a silent accessory to the role played by Sri Sethi. The learned Judge held
                                                                            B
that the process of recovery of the balance bid amount was stalled in the
first instance by repeated extensions granted by Sri Ailawadi and Sri
Dikshit and next by the actions of S/Sri Ailawadi, Baidwan and Virender
Nath which facilitated Skipper to obtain stay from the Court. The learned
Judge recorded further that the process of recovery was stalled finally "by
the turn about taken by Sri H.L. Kapur Lt. Governor and Sri Om Kumar, C
Vice-Chairman who twisted the issue by linking the question of payment
with and subjecting the same to the sandioning of the building plans by
the order embodied in the letter dated October 14, 1988". The learned
Judge characterised the action of Sri H.L. Kapur and Sri Om Kumar as
unjustified, uncalled for and in violation of the original terms and condi- D
tions of auction as well as the stipulations contained in the agreement,
licence deed and the bank guarantee. The said action was found to be
detrimental to the interests of the D .D .A

      Though not mentioned in the summary, we find that the learned
Judge has also reported against Sri K.S. Bains, Vice-Chairman in the body   E
of the Report. He has found him responsible for the failure to encash the
bank guarantee furnished by Skipper immediately, atleast in regard to the
payment of third and fourth instalments.

      At the same time, however, we must take note of a particular F
circumstance mentioned in the Report. In February, 1982, the C.B.I. had
received information regarding alleged favours shown by the D.DA.
authorities to Skipper. They prepared a note and forwarded it to the Lt.
Governor, Sri S.L. Khurana, for appropriate action. The LT Governor
opined that the matter required deeper probe and handed over the case
to C.B.I. for further enquiries and necessary action. His letter was .G
registered as a F.I.R. by the C.B.I. against Sri V.S. Ailawadi. Vice- Chair-
man, Shri K.L. Bhatia, Commissioner (Lands), Sri S.C. Dikshit, Director
(C.L.) and Sri Jagdish Chander, Programme Supervisor. The C.B.I. ex-
amined several officers of D.D.A. during the course of investigations and
came to the conclusion finally that though there were several irregularities, H
    786                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. ·.

A no malafides can be attributed to any of the said officers. The file was
    thereupon closed. In its Report, the C.B.I. had also made certain recom-
    mendations including the following :

             "It may be pointed out that the prevailing practice in the D.D.A.
             to grant frequent extensions to private parties to enable them to
B            deposit the premium amount, appears to be arbitrary, and chances
             cannot be ruled out, when the private parties can offer heavy
             amount as illegal gratification to the persons in Authority only to
             allow them extension against the terms and conditions of the
             auction sale. In order to prevent the scope of malpractice, it is also
c            proposed that the ODA should either delete the conditions in the
             auction sale notice whereby time limit is prescribed for depositing
             the balance premium amount within 90 days or some effective
             checks should be imposed to curb the practice of unlimited dis-
             cretion for allowing extension of time by the DOA officers to the
             private parties."
D
          It is necessary to point out that the enquiry by C.B.I. was confined
    to the period upto March, 1982 only.

         On going through the Report of Justice Chinnappa Reddy, we find
E that the learned Judge has taken great pains and extreme care in coming
  to the conclusions which he did. The conclusions arrived at by the learned
  Judge are entitled to great weight and constitute, in our opinion, sufficient
  basis for initiating disciplinary action against the officers concerned. The
  Report points out how the several officers of the D.D.A. flouted the orders
  of the LT. Governor, acted against the interest of D.D.A. and how they,
F by their several acts, helped Skipper in achieving its nefarious design to
  defraud both the D.D.A. and the innocent members of the public. It is a
  different matter that ultimately Skipper's designs came to nought so far as
  D.D.A. is concerned but that was only because of this Court's orders. So
  far as the members of the public are concerned they lost heavily because
G they believed in and acted upon the several advertisements and proclama-
  tions made by Skipper. The members of the public, it appears, have lost
  more than Rs. 20 to 30 crores in the bargain. This could not have happened
  but for the active connivance and collusion of some of the officers of the
  D .D .A. The interest of justice demand that the officers found indulging in
H such acts be proceeded against and dealt with sternly so that it may serve
                       D.D.A. v. SKIPPER CONTN.                            787

as a lesson to others. A democratic Government does not mean a lax A
Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice
are not meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution.
The 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. B
Hence, the following directions with respect to each of the officers con-
cerned:

      (1) Sri V.S. Ailawadi, IA.S.: We are told that he has retired recently
from the post of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of
India, on May 31, 1995. The Government of India (Department of Person- C
nel) is directed to institute appropriate disciplinary proceedings against
him for the irregularities and illegalities committed by him as Vice-Chair-
man of the D.D.A. as borne out by the Report of Justice 0. Chinnappa
Reddy and the material gathered by the learned Judge in his enquiry. Since
Sri Ailawadi has retired from service, it is obvious that the proceedings D
taken against him will be directed against his pension and other terminal
benefits in accordance with the rules.

      (2) Sri K.S. Baidwan, IA.S. : He is stated to be holding the post of
the Home Secretary in the Government of National Capital Territory of             E
Delhi at present. Disciplinary action shall be taken against him by the
Government of India (Department of Personnel) for imposing a major
penalty for the irregularities ~d illegalities committed by him'as Secretary
to the Lt. Governor. The Report of and the material gathered by Justice
0. Chinnappa Reddy shall constitute the basis for taking such action.
                                                                                  F
      (3) Sri Virender Nath, IA.S. : He is stated to be holding the post of
Commissioner and Secretary of Tourism and Mines, Government of
Haryana, Chandigarh at present. For the irregularities committed by him
as the Commissioner (Lands) D.D.A., disciplinary proceedings for impos-
ing major punishment shall be taken against him by the Government of              G
India (Department of Personnel). The Report of and the material gathered
by Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy shall constitute the basis for taking such
action.

      (4) Sri R.S. Sethi, l.A.S. : He is stated to be holding the post of Joint   H
    788                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India at present.
    In respect of irregularities committed by him as the Commissioner (Lands),
    D.D.A., Government of India (Department of Personnel) shall take dis-
    ciplinary proceedings against him for imposing a major penalty. The
    Report of and the material gathered by Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy shall
B   constitute the basis for taking such action.

        (5) Sli Om Kumar, IA.S. : He is stated to be holding the post of Joint
  Secretary (Ordinance) in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It
  is brought to our notice that he was brought to the D.D.A. as Vice-Chair-
  man to set right the mess which the D .D .A had become under Sri Prem
C Kumar, Vice-Chairm3:n. We take note of the fact that by that time the
  matter relating to sale of the said plot to skipper had become sufficiently
  complicated. Having regard to these facts, we direct that disciplinary
  proceedings for a minor penalty be taken by the Government of India
  (Department of Personnel) against him for the irregularities committed by
D him as the Vice-Chairman of the D .D .A. The Report of and the material
  gathered by Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy shall constitute the basis for
  taking such action.

          (6) We are not directing any disciplinary proceeding; against Sri S.C.
    Dikshit in view of the Report of the C.B.I. mentioned Supra. It may be
E   noticed that Sri S.C. Dikshit's role is referred to by Justice 0. Chinnappa
    Reddy only for the period upto March, 1982 and the Report of the C.B.I.
    covers this period.

          (7) It is directed that no court or authority shall be competent to
    interdict or otherwise interfere with the disciplinary or other proceedings
F   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 from this date and shall be concluded within one year.

G         A copy of the report of Sri Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy along with
    a copy of the evidence/material gathered by the learned Judge shall be sent
    to the Government of India (Department of Personnel). The cost of making
    copies shall be paid by the D.D.A. on a bill being served upon its counsel.

          The Government of India (Department of Personnel) shall submit a
H report of the progress of the disciplinary proceedings at intervals of every
                             D.DA v. SKIPPER CONTN.                        789

       three months to this Court.                                                A
           A sum of Rs. 5,000 shall be paid by the D.D.A. to Sri Raju
       Ramachandran, Advocate, towards his fee in this matter.

             Orders will be separately passed with respect to the recommenda-
       tions made by Justice Chinnappa reddy with regard to the working of the    B
       D.D.A.

       B.K.M.                                                 Petition ordered.




....