Umar Sheikh Vs. State of Jharkhand 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..........in march, 2000 stating therein that his date of birth was 15.1.1942 and therefore, though he could not pass hindi noting and drafting examination but since he crossed the age of fifty years and as such according to the government rules, he was entitled to increment in his salary. in course of the verification of the facts, the deputy commissioner examined his service book and then he suspected regarding entries in his service book because there was no signature of the block development officer, tundi in the service book of the petitioner and only the official seal was there. thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce the certificate granted by the bihar school examination board from which its appeared that there was some discrepancy in the name of the petitioner.4. in my view since the deputy commissioner is already making enquiry in the said matter and has asked the petitioner to produced certain documents as mentioned in annexure-4 to the writ application, and as such no positive order in this case is desirable to be passed at this stage.5. accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the deputy commissioner, dhanbad to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, and to take a decision in the matter and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. the petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the said enquiry and he should produce all the required documents as has been required by the deputy commissioner at an earliest so that the enquiry against him should be completed within the stipulated period.6. it is made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the enquiry and does not produce the documents, the deputy commissioner would be at liberty to conclude the enquiry on the basis of the materials on record.7. with the above observations and directions this application is disposed of.