Jharkhand peon fired for ‘stealing tea and biscuits’, courtroom units apart ‘grossly disproportionate’ punishment | India Information
4 min learnRanchiUp to date: Jun 29, 2026 10:54 PM IST
The Jharkhand Excessive Court docket has ordered the reinstatement of a peon of the District Rural Improvement Company (DRDA), Bokaro, 4 years after his providers have been terminated over allegations that he stole tea powder and biscuits from his workplace, holding that the punishment was “grossly disproportionate” and that it “shocks the conscience”.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar final week put aside the 2022 termination order and directed authorities to reinstate Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu by July 1, with 50% again wages to be paid by July 31. The Bench additionally directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, to file compliance affidavits earlier than the courtroom after reinstatement and cost of dues.
Himanshu was appointed as a contractual peon with the DRDA in 2005 and continued in service for practically 17 years. Based on the courtroom, in March 2022, he was served a show-cause discover alleging that he had taken “some materials” from the workplace for private use. Based on information earlier than the courtroom, the discover didn’t specify what the fabric was. His providers have been terminated in Could 2022, after the authorities held that his clarification in response to the discover was “not passable”.
Difficult the termination, Himanshu approached the Jharkhand Excessive Court docket. Nonetheless, the single-judge Bench dismissed his petition this January. He then appealed earlier than a bigger Bench.
Through the listening to, counsel for Himanshu submitted that the objects referred to within the show-cause discover have been leftover tea powder and some biscuits, which had later been returned.
‘As imprecise as vagueness might be’
The Excessive Court docket noticed that the show-cause discover was “as imprecise as vagueness might be” as a result of it did not establish the fabric allegedly taken, and held {that a} imprecise discover couldn’t fulfill the rules of pure justice. The Bench additional discovered that the termination order assigned no causes and failed to contemplate the worker’s clarification, his practically 17 years of service or the affect the dismissal would have on his household.
It concluded that even when it have been assumed that he had taken tea and biscuits from the workplace, dismissal from service was “grossly disproportionate” and “shocks the conscience”, including that it amounted to “injustice brimming with insensitivity”.
Story continues under this advert
The courtroom additionally famous that there was no allegation that Himanshu had beforehand taken workplace supplies and that certificates issued by former Deputy Improvement Commissioners (DDC), commending his work, had been ignored whereas passing the termination order. Whereas directing his reinstatement, the Bench awarded 50% again wages, observing that forfeiture of the remaining 50% would itself be ample punishment for the alleged lapse.
Monetary misery
Advocate Krishna Prajapati, who represented Himanshu, mentioned his shopper had served the division for thus a few years, and this was the primary time such an allegation was made in opposition to him.
Prajapati mentioned Himanshu’s monetary situation had deteriorated after dropping his job. “When he joined the division, his month-to-month wage was solely Rs 1,600. Even on the time of his termination, he was incomes simply Rs 9,950 a month. He has to help a household of six, together with his spouse, three daughters and his youthful sister. The household has been underneath extreme monetary misery ever since he was faraway from service,” he mentioned.
Story continues under this advert
The advocate additional claimed that regardless of serving for practically 17 years, Himanshu continued as a contractual worker. “He had accomplished greater than a decade in service, and in keeping with the principles, he ought to now be a everlasting worker. As an alternative of contemplating his file, the authorities imposed the harshest potential punishment over a tiny allegation,” Prajapati mentioned.
