Order 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.2010 refusing to interfere with an order of termination of services of the petitioner-appellant as Aaganbari Sahayika. 3. We find that the only reason for termination is the absence of the petitioner from duty from 6.6.2009 till 8.6.2009 without obtaining prior leave of absence. 4. The fact that the petitioner/appellant has replied to the show cause notice on 19.6.2009 makes it obvious that she was available on 19.6.2009. 5. The reason given by the petitioner/ appellant for her absence is that her mother-in-law had died on 6.6.2009 suddenly, because of which she had to rush without having the time to obtain leave. Further case of the petitioner/appellant is that the last rites of her deceased mother-in-law were completed on 18.6.2010 and immediately thereafter she returned to duty. 6. There is no finding that this defence of the petitioner/appellant was false. More importantly, there is no finding whether prior to this occasion, the petitioner/appellant had even absented herself from duty without necessary leave, that is to say whether she was a habitual defaulter. 7. In absence of the aforesaid findings and considering the reasons for absence, the punishment awarded to the petitioner/appellant namely termination of service or disengagement as Aaganbari Sahayika is unduly harsh and totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 8. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the termination order. The petitioner/appellant will be reinstated in service. 9. It will be open to the respondents if found necessary after proper show cause notice, to impose any minor punishment e.g. stoppage of payment for the period of absence.