Jharkhand High Court reinstates peon dismissed over allegations of taking tea, biscuits from office

The Jharkhand High Court recently ordered the reinstatement of a contractual peon who was dismissed from his job at the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) on allegations that he had taken tea powder and biscuits from his office [Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. State of Jharkhand].

In its June 25 order, the Court held that the punishment was grossly disproportionate and that the termination violated the principles of natural justice.

The Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that even assuming the allegations were true, dismissing a contractual peon after nearly 17 years of service on allegations that he took tea and biscuits from office was excessive.

"Even if we assume that the appellant had taken home some tea and biscuits from the office [which we do not justify or approve], we still think that imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the appellant, a lowly paid peon working on a contractual basis for the last 17 years, is grossly disproportionate and shocks the conscience. This is certainly not justice tempered with mercy, but injustice brimming with insensitivity,” the Court said.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu. He had been appointed as a contractual peon with the DRDA Bokaro in December 2005 and had served for nearly 17 years, before his dismissal from service in 2022.

On March 16, 2022, he was issued a show-cause notice alleging that he had taken some material from the office for his personal use and that a part of it had later been returned. However, the notice did not specify what the material was.

In his reply to the notice, Himanshu stated that his family depended on his modest income. He also said that if he had unintentionally committed any mistake, he sought forgiveness and assured the authorities that it would not be repeated. Nevertheless, his services were terminated on May 2, 2022, after the authorities concluded that his explanation was "not satisfactory".

A single judge Bench had earlier declined to interfere with his dismissal from service. Himanshu then filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Court.

During the hearing, Himanshu's counsel submitted that the allegations against his client related to tea powder and biscuits.

The State countered that the prescribed procedure had been followed before Himanshu’s dismissal from service and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court, however, was not persuaded. It found that the show-cause notice was "as vague as vagueness can be" since it failed to specify what material had allegedly been taken or how much had been recovered. It also held that such a vague notice amounted to no notice in the eyes of law and therefore could not satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

The Bench further noted that the termination order merely stated that Himanshu's explanation was "not satisfactory" without assigning any reasons or showing that his reply had been considered.

It also observed that the authorities had ignored his 17 years of service, the hardship that a dismissal from service would cause his family and certificates issued by senior officers commending his work.

The Court said,

"This was indeed a case of breach of natural justice by serving a vague show-cause notice upon the appellant, and after that, completely ignoring his response. The impugned order was unreasonable because it defied the doctrine of proportionality and, further, failed to take into account several relevant considerations. The certificates issued by various Deputy Development Commissioners in the past, commending the appellant's work and stating that his work was excellent, have also been ignored."

Thus, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed that Himanshu be reinstated by July 1, 2026.

It also directed the State to pay him 50 per cent back wages by July 31, 2026, observing that forfeiture of the remaining 50 per cent of back wages was itself a sufficient penalty, assuming any misconduct had been committed.

The Bench further directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, and the Deputy Development Commissioner to personally ensure compliance with its directions and file compliance affidavits.

The matter will next be taken up on July 13 and August 13, 2026, to consider the compliance reports.

Advocate Krishna Prajapati appeared for Himanshu. Senior Standing Counsel Ashok Kumar Yadav, assisted by Advocate Aditya Kumar, appeared for the State.

[Read Order]