“Taking Tea And Biscuits Home Didn't Warrant Dismissal After 17 Years' Service”: Jharkhand High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Peon
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a contractual peon who was dismissed after allegedly taking tea and biscuits from his office, holding that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings also stood vitiated as the employee was served with a vague show-cause notice and his reply was...
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a contractual peon who was dismissed after allegedly taking tea and biscuits from his office, holding that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings also stood vitiated as the employee was served with a vague show-cause notice and his reply was rejected without assigning reasons.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing an appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the termination of his services as a peon in the office of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Bokaro.
The appellant was appointed as a contractual peon in December 2005. After rendering nearly 17 years of service, he was issued a show-cause notice in March 2022 alleging that he had taken “some material” from the office for his personal use and kept it at his residence. The Court noted that the show-cause notice did not disclose what the material was or the quantity allegedly taken. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation pertained only to tea powder and biscuits.
In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant referred to his 17 years of service and stated that he was the sole earning member of a family comprising his wife, three daughters and younger sister. He sought forgiveness if the authorities felt that he had unintentionally committed any mistake and assured that such an incident would not recur. However, by order dated May 2, 2022, the Deputy Development Commissioner rejected the explanation as “not satisfactory” and terminated the appellant's services.
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the show-cause notice was hopelessly vague and that the termination order did not record any reasons or demonstrate consideration of his reply.
The Division Bench found merit in the contention of the appellant. The Court observed that the show-cause notice was “as vague as vagueness can be” as it merely alleged that “some material” had been taken without identifying the articles or furnishing any particulars. The Bench held:
"The issue of a vague show-cause notice amounts to no notice. Therefore, based upon a vague show-cause notice, the respondents cannot claim that the principles of natural justice were duly complied with."
The Court further held that the termination order merely stated that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory without recording any reasons or reflecting even minimal consideration of his response. According to the Bench, in the case of a low-paid contractual employee who had served for nearly 17 years, the authorities were expected to pass a reasoned order after considering his long service, financial circumstances and the impact that termination would have on his family. The Court also found the punishment to be wholly disproportionate.
The Bench observed that even assuming the allegation regarding tea and biscuits to be correct, dismissal from service after nearly 17 years of service was excessive. It observed:
"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 Bench also noted that there was no allegation that the appellant habitually took office material home. It further observed that certificates issued by previous Deputy Development Commissioners appreciating the appellant's work had been completely ignored by the disciplinary authority.
Holding that the termination order violated the principles of natural justice and failed the test of proportionality, the Court set aside the order of dismissal. The High Court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Noting that the appellant had remained out of service for four years, the Court observed:
"The appellant has remained out of service for the last four years. We can only imagine what his plight must have been, and, moreover, the plight of his family members, simply because their father brought some tea and biscuits from the office home to feed them."
To ensure prompt implementation of its directions, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, to personally ensure compliance with the order. It further directed the Deputy Commissioner to file a compliance affidavit before the Court by July 10, 2026.
Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Case Number: L.P.A. No. 185 of 2026.
Appearance: Mr. Krishna Prajapati for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Aditya Kumar for the Respondents.