Dismissed¶27

Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2026WPC/7659/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand (Ananda Sen, J.), dismissed on 07.01.2026 — termination of contractual employee of Department of Rural Development, Bokaro via Memo No.17 dated 02.05.2022 after show cause notice; misconduct alleged (taking official materials home); opportunity of hearing found adequate; no procedural illegality; no relief granted. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

It is admitted on the record that the petitioner was a contractual employee, and sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to him. ¶24

Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:215

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu, aged about 44 years, Son of Sri Mahendra Paswan, Resident of Camp-2, Quarter No.4C/6, P.O.Sector-1, PS-Sector-1, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand), 827001.

¶5

… … Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Secretary, Department of Rural Development, having its office at F.F.P. Building, 2^nd Floor, Dhurwa, PO + PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶9

Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development, having its office at F.F.P. Building, 2^nd Floor, Dhurwa, PO + PSDhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶10

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, District, Rural Development Agency, Bokaro, having its office at Zila Gavya Vikas Karyalay, Bokaro, PO + PS-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶11

Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Bokaro, DistrictRural Development Agency, Bokaro, having its office at DRDA, DC Office, Bokaro, PO + PS-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s)

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶13

------

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate

¶15

02/ 07^th January, 2026

¶16

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the records.

¶17

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No.17 dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been terminated.

¶18

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. He was working in the office of Department of Rural Development, Bokaro.

¶19

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken away several materials from his office for his own use and kept in his house. When the aforesaid fact came to light and the matter was investigated, the petitioner brought them back without

¶20

¶21

2026:JHHC:215

¶22

any information to the superiors.

¶23

5. For the aforesaid misconduct, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied and since the same was not found satisfactory, his contract was terminated.

¶24

6. From the records, I find that admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

¶25

7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken some official materials to his own house for his own consumption without the approval or knowledge of the authorities. When the matter came to light, he returned some of them. The aforesaid act of the petitioner definitely can be said to be a misconduct.

¶26

8. Thus, after giving an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner’s contract of service was terminated.

¶27

9. I find no procedural illegality committed by the respondents. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed .

¶28

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶29

07.01.2026

¶30

S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 09.01.2026

¶31

Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Vs M/S Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Kalavati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Vidyadhar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand, Thro the Chief Secretary

Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Israil Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Shashi Bhushan Agrawal Vs State of Jharkhand