Jharkhand HC Reinstates DRDA Peon Dismissed Over Tea and Biscuits, Awards 50% Back Wages

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice M. S. Sonak reversed a Single Judge's order and set aside the termination of a contractual peon who served for 17 years, calling the penalty grossly disproportionate and the show-cause notice fatally vague.

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has ordered the reinstatement of Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu, a contractual peon with the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Bokaro, whose services were terminated in May 2022 after nearly 17 years of continuous service. The termination arose from an allegation that he had taken unspecified “some material” from the office to his home. The Division Bench — comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar — found that the show-cause notice was impermissibly vague, the termination order gave no reasons, and the penalty of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to what the bench concluded was, at most, the taking of tea and biscuits. The court directed reinstatement by 1 July 2026 and payment of 50% back wages by 31 July 2026.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

Himanshu was appointed as a peon on a contractual basis with the DRDA, Bokaro, with effect from 31 December 2005. On 16 March 2022, the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Bokaro, issued a show-cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated. The notice stated that “some material” from the office had been lost and that, upon enquiry, it emerged that Himanshu had taken the material home for personal use. The notice also recorded that some of the material had been returned by him.

Himanshu replied on 21 March 2022. He pointed to his 17 years of service, described his family of six — a wife, three daughters, and a younger sister — who depended on his meagre earnings, and stated that termination would leave them on the street. He expressed that if he had unintentionally committed any mistake, he sought forgiveness and assured it would not recur.

By order dated 2 May 2022, the DDC, Bokaro, acting under the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, terminated his services. The order recorded only that the cause shown was “not satisfactory” and said nothing more.

Himanshu challenged the termination in W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2025 before a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 7 January 2026. He then filed L.P.A. No. 185 of 2026 before the Division Bench. With the consent of both sides, the appeal was admitted and disposed of finally at the second hearing on 25 June 2026.

The Legal Issues: Vague Notice, Unreasoned Order, and Proportionality

The Division Bench identified three distinct failures in the termination proceedings.

The show-cause notice did not identify what “material” had been taken, how much of it was returned, or any other particulars. The bench described it as “as vague as vagueness can be.” Counsel for Himanshu submitted that the material in question was only tea powder and biscuits. The bench found no reason to doubt this, and observed that the deliberate omission of specifics may itself have been calculated: naming tea and biscuits in the notice would have made the severity of the proposed penalty immediately apparent.

The termination order of 2 May 2022 was equally bare. It recorded a conclusion but offered no reasoning. It did not engage with Himanshu's 17 years of service, his financial circumstances, or the impact on his family. The bench held that passing a termination order without reasons, and without reflecting even minimum consideration of the employee's response, does not amount to compliance with the principles of natural justice or fair play. A vague show-cause notice, the bench said, amounts to no notice at all.

On proportionality, the bench held that even assuming Himanshu had taken tea and biscuits from the office — which it did not justify or approve — imposing dismissal on a contractual peon after 17 years of blemishless service for a single such incident “shocks the conscience.” The show-cause notice itself did not allege that this was a habitual practice. The bench therefore proceeded on the premise that it was a first and isolated incident. Certificates issued by various Deputy Development Commissioners in the past, commending Himanshu's work as excellent, had also been ignored entirely by the terminating authority.

The bench further noted that Himanshu's response contained no clear admission of wrongdoing. His statement — that if the respondents felt he had unintentionally committed a mistake, he was sorry — was a conditional expression of regret, not a confession. The termination order's treatment of this as an admission was, in the bench's view, a misreading of the record.

The Bench's Reasoning on Natural Justice and Proportionality

The Division Bench drew together the threads of vagueness, non-application of mind, and disproportionality to reach a single conclusion: the termination order was unreasonable on multiple grounds simultaneously.

On natural justice, the bench held that a vague show-cause notice deprives the employee of a meaningful opportunity to respond. Serving such a notice and then ignoring the response entirely compounds the breach. The bench rejected the State's submission that all procedures had been complied with, finding that formal compliance is not the same as substantive compliance with the principles of natural justice.

On proportionality, the bench applied the doctrine directly to the facts. A contractual peon earning a meagre salary, with 17 years of service and a family of six dependent on him, was dismissed for what was, at most, a single incident involving tea and biscuits — some of which had already been returned. The bench described the outcome as “injustice brimming with insensitivity” rather than justice tempered with mercy.

The bench also noted that Himanshu had made representations after his termination, effectively begging for mercy, but received no response from the Deputy Commissioner or the DDC. This post-termination conduct of the authorities reinforced the bench's view that the matter had been handled without due regard for the human consequences involved.

Having found that the Single Judge erred in upholding the termination, the Division Bench reversed the order dated 7 January 2026 and set aside termination memo no. 17 dated 2 May 2022.

Directions and Compliance Mechanism

The bench ordered reinstatement with 50% of back wages. Given that Himanshu had been out of service for four years, the bench treated the forfeiture of the remaining 50% of back wages as itself constituting sufficient penalty for any default, if any, that he may have committed.

The reinstatement deadline was set at 1 July 2026. Payment of 50% back wages was directed to follow within a month, on or before 31 July 2026.

Anticipating administrative delay, the bench directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, and the DDC, Bokaro, must personally ensure compliance within the stated timelines. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, was directed to file a compliance affidavit regarding reinstatement by 10 July 2026, with an advance copy to Himanshu's counsel. A further compliance affidavit regarding payment of back wages was directed to be filed by 10 August 2026, again with an advance copy to counsel.

The matter was listed “For Orders” on 13 July 2026 and again on 13 August 2026 to consider the compliance reports.

Order

L.P.A. No. 185 of 2026 was allowed. Termination memo no. 17 dated 2 May 2022 was set aside. Himanshu was directed to be reinstated in service by 1 July 2026. Fifty per cent of back wages were directed to be paid by 31 July 2026. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, was directed to file compliance affidavits on 10 July 2026 and 10 August 2026. The matter was posted for consideration of compliance on 13 July 2026 and 13 August 2026. No order as to costs was made.