ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By the impugned order contained in Letter No. 195 dated 23rd February 2013 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga (Respondent No. 3), the Chief Development Project Officer, Kisko (Respondent No. 4) was directed to terminate the service of the petitioner and undertake a fresh selection process to select a new Aanganwari Sevika for the centre Bethat Satpara in Kisko block in the district of Lohardaga. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said communication on the ground that it is passed on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga who has been conferred with the power of Appellate Authority in terms of Circular dated 2nd June 2006 (Annexure-1) issued by the Department of Women, Social Welfare, and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand. It is also assailed on the ground that it is non speaking and has been passed in mechanical manner. The petitioner assails it further on the ground that no proper opportunity of notice or show-cause has been given as under letter no. 31st January 2013 issued under the signature of District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga, only 24 hours time was given to her to file reply to the said show-cause. 4. On merits, it was replied also by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 giving reasons. The impugned order however does not reflect such application of mind before terminating the services of the petitioner who was working as a Aanganwari Sevika in the said Centre having been appointed on 16th November 2006 after due selection process and underwent training also thereafter as a mandatory condition for joining the duty vide Annexure-2 which is appointment letter. She completed the mandatory training of one year vide Annexure-4 dated 31st January 2007 and also completed the training in Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illness vide Annexure-5 dated 5th October 2010 and completed further training of Refresher Course of Aanganwari Sevika from 9th August 2011 to 15th August 2011 vide Annexure-6 which is a certificate to that effect. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that in the show-cause notice, it was alleged that on inspection made on 23rd January 2013 at 9.30 AM, only 03 children were found, though attendance register showed presence of 13 children per day which indicated that false attendance was created in the register. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that in the show-cause notice, it was alleged that on inspection made on 23rd January 2013 at 9.30 AM, only 03 children were found, though attendance register showed presence of 13 children per day which indicated that false attendance was created in the register. It further alleged that till December 2012, enrollment of 40 children were recorded in the average of 35-40 children, while in January 2013, only 13 children were enrolled which shows that previous enrollment shown in the earlier months were false and with an intention to misuse the food items provided and for embezzlement of Government money in lieu thereof. It further alleged that though THR Register reflects signature of the beneficiaries, but the amount and quantity of food items and their names were not reflected, neither was the time indicated to ensure presence of representative of Matra Samitee /Panchayati Raj Institution at the time of such distribution. These acts were alleged to be serious irregularity to which the petitioner was asked to respond within 24 hours. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that these were duly replied vide Annexure-9 dated 02nd February 2013 itself stating that during morning hours in the month of January there was lesser attendance, but children used to appear at the time of distribution of food. Therefore, during inspection, lesser number of children were found. She also produced the earlier register in which 38 children were shown to be enrolled and were certified by the supervisor as well. In the absence of a proper column in THR Register, amount and quantity of food items could not be reflected, though such entries were made in the register containing description of food items. Therefore, there were no irregularity on her part. In response to the counter affidavit of the respondent, the petitioner has also relied upon the earlier correspondences contained at Annexure-13 dated 29th August 2012 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga to the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga and Annexure-13/1 dated 19th October 2012 issued by the Block Development Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga to the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga which shows that the Aanganwari Centre in question is being properly managed and conducted by the petitioner as being found during the course of inquiries. It is submitted that certain persons who were aggrieved by shifting of the Aanganwari Centre, have deliberately made complaints to malign the petitioner which has also been mentioned in the letter dated 29th August 2012 (Annexure-13). 7. Counsel for the petitioner has therefore assailed the impugned order also by stating that the copy of the complaints being the basis of such auction and enclosed to the inquiry report (Annexure-A), was also not furnished to the petitioner in order to respond. 8. Respondent have contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated by referring to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which is a complaint petition made by the villagers in respect of Aanganwari Centre Bethat Satpara that the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga ordered inquiry to be conducted by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga. On inspection made on 23rd January 2013, aforesaid irregularities were found and therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit show-cause on 31st January 2013. After taking into regard her reply to the show-cause and instruction contained in Circular dated 2nd June 2006, order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga who is the competent authority to cancel the petitioner's appointment and make a fresh selection of Aanganwari Sevika in the said centre. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned action does not suffer from any such error of law or facts. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. It is evident from the documents which have been referred to in the earlier paragraphs that under Circular dated 2nd June 2006, in cases of detection of irregularity or unsatisfactory discharge of duty by Aanganwari Sevika / Sahaiyaka or absence for more than 15 days without authorization, show-cause is required to be asked by the Child Development Project Officer and order of termination of services could be passed after prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner by the Child Development Project Officer. There is also provision of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. There is also provision of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the petitioner is working as Aanganwari Sevika in the said centre pursuant to her appointment on 16th November 2006 and she had also undergone mandatory training as also other training from time to timewhich would be evident from the certificates annexed to the writ petition and referred to herein above in the earlier paragraphs. From the show-cause contained at Annexure-A, it appears that for certain alleged charges, the petitioner was asked to submit reply within a period of 24 hours. It has to be observed here that the period of 24 hours for offering reply before proceeding to pass an order of termination of service of a person who is holding the post of Aanganwari Sevika for quite sometime, cannot be said to be a sufficient opportunity or time given to respond to the alleged charges. The allegations referred in the show-cause are serious in nature of creating false attendance register in order to indulge in misuse of food items and embezzle the Government money to be used for beneficiaries under the said centre. The aforesaid allegations reflected upon the integrity of the petitioner and in order to enable the noticee to offer proper reply to the same, adequate opportunity was a must. The more serious are the charges, the requirement of proper opportunity of hearing is more. It appears that though the petitioner replied by giving reasons that the earlier register showed enrollment of 38 children being certified by the supervisor as well, the same were not accepted and her explanation in relation to the minimum presence of the children in the month of January at 9.30 AM also do not appear to be accepted by the respondent. In any case, the impugned order does not reflect any reasons for not accepting such explanation as it is cryptic and showing non-application of mind. 10. According to the respondent, conduct of the petitioner was being inquired on the basis of complaints made by the certain villagers as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. However, such document was not served upon the petitioner before taking a decision in the matter. 10. According to the respondent, conduct of the petitioner was being inquired on the basis of complaints made by the certain villagers as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. However, such document was not served upon the petitioner before taking a decision in the matter. On the other hand, the correspondence at Annexure-13 dated 29th August 2012 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga also show that certain inspection was carried out in the month of August 2012 at the instance of District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga in which inquiries were made from certain beneficiary ladies who stated that the centre was being opened regularly and food items were being distributed. It further appears that even in the month of October 2012, Block Development Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga had reported to the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga in respect of performance of the Aanganwari Centre in question. He has stated in the said letter that the said centre was being properly conducted and concerned villagers reported that though children do not appear throughout the working hours of the centre, but at the time of distribution of meal, they suddenly appear. As a result of which, food articles to be served to the pregnant women is made to suffer. He also reported that the perusal of the attendance register and the food register would also show that the children used to attend the said Aanganwari Centre. 11. In the aforesaid background, it appears that all the aforesaid contentions were required to be properly inquired into and examined by the competent authority before arriving at a decision. However, the impugned order does not indicate that the same has been passed with proper application of mind. It further appears that the Deputy Commissioner himself has taken the decision to terminate the service of the petitioner, whereas the Deputy Commissioner has been treated to be an Appellate Authority where in case of such termination, an appeal can be preferred by the aggrieved person. In essence, the petitioner can be said to have been denied an opportunity of appeal before the Appellate Authority because original decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. 12. In essence, the petitioner can be said to have been denied an opportunity of appeal before the Appellate Authority because original decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances therefore, the decision making process appears to have been vitiated in law as well as on facts by failing to conform to the proper procedure laid down under the Circular dated 02nd June 2006 which governs the conditions of appointment and termination of such Aanganwari Sevika / Sahaiyaka in the State of Jharkhand. It further appears that the impugned decision also suffers from absence of proper opportunity and also denial of relevant documents before proper decision could have been taken by the competent authority. The impugned order does not appear to be containing reasons and proper application of mind upon consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner. The impugned order therefore does not sustain in the eye of law as well as on fact and it is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent are however at liberty to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after compliance of the principles of natural justice. Petition allowed.