2026:JHHC:215 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2025 ------ 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. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, having its office at F.F.P. Building, 2nd Floor, Dhurwa, PO + PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development, having its office at F.F.P. Building, 2nd Floor, Dhurwa, PO + PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, District, Rural Development Agency, Bokaro, having its office at Zila Gavya Vikas Karyalay, Bokaro, PO + PS-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Bokaro, District- Rural Development Agency, Bokaro, having its office at DRDA, DC Office, Bokaro, PO + PS-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate ------ 02/ 07th January, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the records. 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. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. He was working in the office of Department of Rural Development, Bokaro. 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 2026:JHHC:215 2 any information to the superiors. 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. 6. From the records, I find that admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 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. 8. Thus, after giving an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner’s contract of service was terminated. 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. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 07.01.2026 S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 09.01.2026