Reinstatement of Dismissed Peon: A Landmark Judgment by Jharkhand High Court
In a recent significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court mandated the reinstatement of a contractual peon who had been dismissed by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) under allegations of taking tea and biscuits from the office. The matter, Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. State of Jharkhand, was decided on June 25, with the Court emphasizing that the dismissal was grossly disproportionate and violated the principles of natural justice.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar, found the punishment excessively harsh given the circumstances. They stated, “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.”
The Background: Allegations and Proceedings
Appellant Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu had served as a contractual peon with DRDA Bokaro since December 2005. In 2022, nearly 17 years into his service, he was issued a show-cause notice on March 16, alleging that he had taken some materials from the office for personal use, which were later partially returned. However, the notice lacked specifics concerning the nature of the materials involved.
In his defense, Himanshu explained his family’s reliance on his income and sought forgiveness for any unintentional errors. Despite this, his employment was terminated on May 2, 2022, with the authorities deeming his explanation “not satisfactory.” A single judge Bench had previously upheld his dismissal, prompting Himanshu to appeal to a Division Bench.
Court’s Decision: Emphasis on Natural Justice and Proportionality
During the appeal, Himanshu’s counsel argued that the allegations were limited to tea powder and biscuits. The State, however, maintained that due process had been followed in the dismissal, with no breach of natural justice.
More Read
The Court disagreed, highlighting the vagueness of the show-cause notice, which failed to specify the exact materials or their quantities. It ruled that such a notice amounted to no notice in legal terms and thus did not fulfill the requirements of natural justice.
The Bench criticized the termination order for merely stating the explanation was “not satisfactory,” without providing reasons or evidence of consideration of Himanshu’s reply. It further noted that the authorities disregarded Himanshu’s long service, potential family hardships due to the dismissal, and positive work certificates from senior officers.
Conclusion and Compliance Orders
The Court ordered the dismissal to be set aside, directing Himanshu’s reinstatement by July 1, 2026, and awarding 50% back wages, deeming the forfeiture of the remaining back wages a sufficient penalty. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, and the Deputy Development Commissioner were instructed to ensure compliance and submit affidavits. The case is scheduled for compliance review on July 13 and August 13, 2026.
Advocate Krishna Prajapati represented Himanshu, while Senior Standing Counsel Ashok Kumar Yadav, with Advocate Aditya Kumar, represented the State.
