A provincial investigation has confirmed that officials and staff at a junior campus in Huaiyang, Henan, improperly siphoned off hundreds of thousands of yuan from student meal payments, prompting a rare public rebuke and a swathe of disciplinary punishments.
The Huaiyang district joint investigation team, formed on 26 December 2025, found that between February 2023 and July 2024 the catering contractor for Huaiyang People’s Middle School (the junior section of Huaiyang High School) returned cash to the school on six occasions totalling 410.565万元. The investigation says 387.1327万元 was used for teacher allowances and exam-related performance pay, 14.7323万元 for minor repairs and cleaning supplies, 8万元 was taken by a cafeteria manager, and about 0.7万元 ended up in the personal bank account of the school principal.
The probe followed a December complaint by the contractor, Henan Dexin Catering Management Co., whose representative told reporters that school logistics staff had demanded a 15% kickback from meal revenues — far above the 4.5% management fee written into the 2021 contract. Local media had earlier reported the contractor’s allegation that roughly 330万元 had been taken over two years; the official inquiry both corroborated substantial irregularities and produced a larger accounting of the cash flows.
Officials ordered the full return of the 410.565万元 to students and imposed internal party and administrative penalties on 14 people. Sanctions ranged from warnings and removal from posts to dismissal and criminal referrals; a cafeteria manager has been expelled from the party and fired and is being handed to prosecutors for suspected criminal conduct. District leaders and education bureau officials received party warnings or demotions, while the school’s principal faced party probation and administrative removal.
The case touches on broader regulatory guidance issued in 2022 by the finance and education ministries, which emphasise that school canteens must operate on a public-service, non-profit basis and that dormitory and meal charges should be strictly used for nutrition and meal costs. Investigators questioned why a management fee was initially increased in practice despite those rules, and why large sums were handled in cash rather than through transparent institutional channels.
Beyond the immediate personnel fallout, the episode underscores two systemic weaknesses: opaque local financial practices and the vulnerability of private contractors who supply public services to informal demands from school staff. The district government issued a public apology and pledged a comprehensive review to shore up safeguards in school finance; for parents and the wider public, the episode will be measured by whether money is recovered, whether criminal cases proceed, and whether routine controls are tightened to prevent recurrence.
For Chinese policy watchers the case is consequential not for its size alone but for its symbolism. It demonstrates both the leverage that frontline education managers can exercise over contracted service providers and the capacity of local disciplinary organs to act quickly once a matter becomes public. How Beijing’s broader regulatory apparatus responds — with clearer accounting rules, electronic payment and auditing requirements for school meals, or merely personnel reshuffles — will determine whether this incident becomes an isolated purge or a catalyst for deeper administrative reform.