Tapas Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........1986 on hand receipt basis, wherein-after his name was entered as muster roll workman on 25th july, 1987. the petitioner still claiming himself to be working under the 4th respondent, executive engineer, p.h. division, ranchi.3. his grievance is that though one or other direction given by respondent no. 2 on 13th november, 1992; by respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 24th march, 1995 and information sent by s.d.o., bundu, p.h.e.d. relating to muster roll/hand receipt employee, but no order of regularisation has been issued.4. there is nothing on the record to suggest that the state government framed any rule/guidelines for regularisation of services of daily wage employees.5. in this background, no direction can be given for regularisation of the service of the petitioner. however, if the respondents are taking work from the petitioner on daily wage, it is desirable that instead of continuing with the ad hoc arrangement, they should fill up the post on regular basis.6. in the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated and eligible persons for regular appointment, if they are working on muster roll/hand receipt basis, as and when appropriate post is filled up in future. the engineer-in-chief-cum-special secretary of the department will determine as to whether any post of pump operator is existing and to be filled up or not within three months and if it is found vacant and decided to be filled up, will complete the procedure of selection preferably within six months thereof,7. it may be mentioned that this court has not decided as to whether the petitioner is fit to be appointed against any appropriate post or not.the writ petition stands disposed of.