DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER

Based on the investigative report of a former Supreme Court Judge and after hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that various DDA officials had indulged in gross irregularities and collusion that caused loss to both DDA and members of the public. The conclusions of the investigative judge constitute sufficient ground for initiating disciplinary action. Disciplinary proceedings against named officials are to be commenced and concluded within a stipulated period, and all other courts/authorities are restrained from interfering.

Parties
Petitioner: Delhi Development Authority; Respondents: Skipper Construction and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 21000 of 1993 / Order on Disciplinary Proceedings Following Investigative Report
Outcome
Petition ordered.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Public Authority Misconduct, Administrative Law, Natural Justice, Public Interest
Service Law Disciplinary Proceedings Public Authority Misconduct Administrative Law Natural Justice Public Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Petitioner

Skipper Construction and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 21000 of 1993 / Order on Disciplinary Proceedings Following Investigative Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against DDA officials found guilty of collusion resulting in loss to DDA and the public
  2. 2 Whether other courts/authorities can interfere with disciplinary proceedings directed by the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the investigative report of a former Supreme Court Judge and after hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that various DDA officials had indulged in gross irregularities and collusion that caused loss to both DDA and members of the public. The conclusions of the investigative judge constitute sufficient ground for initiating disciplinary action. Disciplinary proceedings against named officials are to be commenced and concluded within a stipulated period, and all other courts/authorities are restrained from interfering.

Court Disposition

Petition ordered.

Orders

  • Disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against named DDA officials as per the directions; types of penalty (major/minor) specified for each.
  • No court or authority permitted to interdict or interfere in such proceedings; only Supreme Court may issue further directions if necessary.