Jharkhand peon fired for ‘stealing tea and biscuits’, court sets aside ‘grossly disproportionate’ punishment

Himanshu was appointed as a contractual peon with the DRDA in 2005 and continued in service for nearly 17 years. According to the court, in March 2022, he was served a show-cause notice alleging that he had taken “some material” from the office for personal use. According to records before the court, the notice did not specify what the material was. His services were terminated in May 2022, after the authorities held that his explanation in response to the notice was “not satisfactory”.

Challenging the termination, Himanshu approached the Jharkhand High Court. However, the single-judge Bench dismissed his petition this January. He then appealed before a larger Bench.

During the hearing, counsel for Himanshu submitted that the items referred to in the show-cause notice were leftover tea powder and a few biscuits, which had later been returned.

‘As vague as vagueness can be’

The High Court observed that the show-cause notice was “as vague as vagueness can be” because it failed to identify the material allegedly taken, and held that a vague notice could not satisfy the principles of natural justice. The Bench further found that the termination order assigned no reasons and failed to consider the employee’s explanation, his nearly 17 years of service or the impact the dismissal would have on his family.

It concluded that even if it were assumed that he had taken tea and biscuits from the office, dismissal from service was “grossly disproportionate” and “shocks the conscience”, adding that it amounted to “injustice brimming with insensitivity”.

The court also noted that there was no allegation that Himanshu had previously taken office materials and that certificates issued by former Deputy Development Commissioners (DDC), commending his work, had been ignored while passing the termination order. While directing his reinstatement, the Bench awarded 50% back wages, observing that forfeiture of the remaining 50% would itself be sufficient punishment for the alleged lapse.

Financial distress

Advocate Krishna Prajapati, who represented Himanshu, said his client had served the department for so many years, and this was the first time such an allegation was made against him.

Prajapati said Himanshu’s financial condition had deteriorated after losing his job. “When he joined the department, his monthly salary was only Rs 1,600. Even at the time of his termination, he was earning just Rs 9,950 a month. He has to support a family of six, including his wife, three daughters and his younger sister. The family has been under severe financial distress ever since he was removed from service,” he said.

The advocate further claimed that despite serving for nearly 17 years, Himanshu continued as a contractual employee. “He had completed more than a decade in service, and according to the rules, he should now be a permanent employee. Instead of considering his record, the authorities imposed the harshest possible punishment over a tiny allegation,” Prajapati said.