A vague show-cause notice constitutes a breach of natural justice, and termination for a minor first-time offense after long service is grossly disproportionate and unreasonable.

1. Heard Mr Krishna Prajapati for the appellant and Mr Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. SC-1, who appears with Mr Aditya Kumar for the respondents.

2. Admit. At the request and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of finally.

3. The appellant challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 07.01.2026 dismissing his W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2025 by which he had sought the setting aside of the order dated 02.05.2022 terminating his services as a peon in the office of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Government of Jharkhand, Bokaro.

4. The appellant was appointed as a peon on a contractual basis with the DRDA with effect from 31.12.2005. After an almost 17-year period of service, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Bokaro, on 16.03.2022, requiring him to explain why his services should not be terminated.

5. The said show cause notice is exhibited at page 49 of the paper book, and the same is as vague as vagueness can be. This show cause notice states that “some material” from the office has been lost, and upon an enquiry, it was revealed that the appellant had taken such material into his house for his personal use. The show-cause notice also states that some of the material was returned by the appellant to the office.

6. Crucially, the show cause notice does not identify what such material was or provide any particulars as to how much of it was returned by the appellant. This is significant because the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the material referred to in the show cause notice was only tea powder and biscuits.

7. The appellant responded to the show cause notice dated 16.03.2022 with a response dated 21.03.2022, which appears on page 50 of the paper book. In his response, he stated that he had been serving with the DRDA as a peon on a contractual basis for the past 17 years. He stated that he has a family of six, comprising his wife, three daughters, and a younger sister, who survive on his meagre earnings. He further stated that if his services are terminated, he and his family would be forced to live on the street.

8. In his response, the appellant also stated that, if after several years of dedicated service, it is found that he unintentionally committed any mistake, he seeks forgiveness with folded hands and assures that such a mistake will not be repeated. Finally, the appellant concluded that his response may be accepted and that he may be forgiven, and he once again assured that no such mistake would be repeated. He submitted that he and his family would be eternally grateful if his request is accepted.

9. By order dated 02.05.2022, at page 51 of the paper book, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, under the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, by a terse order, has simply concluded that the cause shown by the appellant was “not satisfactory” and then proceeded to terminate the services of the appellant.

10. The impugned termination order dated 02.05.2022, apart from recording a terse conclusion that the appellant’s response was not satisfactory, does not give any reasons in support of this conclusion. The order does not even reflect a minimum consideration of the appellant’s response, wherein he had pointed out his 17 years of service, his financial status, and the impact that the termination could have on his family members, comprising his wife, three daughters, and a younger sister.

11. The