Vijay Ram Vs. Bccl 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.....m.y. eqbal, j.1. heard mr. jai prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. a.k. mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.2. the petitioner is aggrieved by the order which was communicated vide letter dated 12.11.1999 whereby the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate ground.3. late lakhan ram father of the petitioner, was an employee in hurriladih colliery under the respondents and in course of employment he died on 11.5.1993. the widow of the deceased, smt. radha devi firstly made an application in 1994 for her appointment on compassionate ground. it is stated that the application of the widow was not considered by the respondents. however, in 1996 another application was filed by the petitioner being the son of the deceased claiming appointment on compassionate ground. the said application remained pending till 1999. however, by letter dated 12.11.1999 the respondents informed the petitioner that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was refused.4. in the counter affidavit it is stated that at the time of death of late lakhan ram the petitioner was minor and consequently no application for compassionate appointment was filed on his behalf. subsequently whenthe petitioner attained majority he made an application for appointment. the respondents denied that the widow of the deceased employee ever made application for her appointment on compassionate ground.5. it is well settled principle of law that compassionate appointment ' cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the very purpose of compassionate appointment as an exception to the general rules of open recruitment is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of.....