ORDER Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3777 of 2012. The delay of two days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 808 of 2012. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9th April 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 4957 of 2012, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. The subject matter of dispute is the order of removal of the appellant as Anganwari Sevika made on 29th October 2008 by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. After a round of litigations, the said order was challenged by the appellant in above CWJC No. 4957 of 2012. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal. 4. It appears that by order dated 20th August 2004 made by the Child Development Project Officer, Lakhisarai, the appellant was appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Thatheri Tola Centre, Ward No. 23, Lakhisarai. On an inspection made on 9th July 2008, the Centre was found to be closed and the appellant was absent. Further information was received that the Centre is not opened regularly and mid-day meal is not provided to the children. Pursuant to the said inspection, a show cause notice came to be issued upon the appellant on 30th July 2008. According to the appellant, she had answered the said show cause notice on 23rd October 2008 and had sent it to the concerned officer by registered post. Nevertheless, without considering her reply, by the impugned order dated 29th October 2008 she was removed from service. 5. Learned single Judge has observed that the appellant did not answer the show cause notice served upon her. In view of the nature of allegations made against her, her removal was justified. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant did reply to the show cause notice. Nevertheless, the said show cause notice was not considered by the authority below. Learned single Judge has wrongly held that the appellant did not reply to the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on 30th July 2008 with a clear direction that the appellant shall reply to the said show cause notice within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Learned single Judge has wrongly held that the appellant did not reply to the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on 30th July 2008 with a clear direction that the appellant shall reply to the said show cause notice within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Evidently, the appellant did not respond to the said notice within three days. A copy of the reply is brought on the record. The said reply was given on 23rd October 2008; nearly three months after the date of the receipt of the show cause notice. On perusal of the reply, it is evident that although the appellant raised so many defences, she did not even deny the allegations made against her. In absence of bare denial in respect of the allegations made against the appellant, in our opinion, her removal from service was justified. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine.