JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 dated 4th September, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the order of termination passed by the respondents – State Government of this appellant dated 11th June, 2010 has been confirmed. 2. The appellant is the original petitioner who has instituted W.P. (S) No.3583 of 2010 challenging the order of termination passed by the respondents – State dated 11th June, 2010. This appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika of Govindpur Cente, District Dumka vide order dated 11th August, 2009 (Annexure 7 to this memo of appeal). It further appears from the facts of the case that for the period running from 24th June, 2008 to 27th June, 2008, while the petitioner was working as 'Sevika', without taking leave, she appeared in the Matriculation examination and on the basis of clearance of Matriculation examination, she was selected on the post of Anganwari Sevka. Previously, she was employed as Sevika at the said Centre of district Dumka. Secondly, no leave application was forwarded to anyone. Thirdly, no leave was ever granted to this appellant. Fourthly, she was absent but she availed honorarium for the aforesaid period during the leave. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the charges were found to be true in the enquiry report. Hence, her services were terminated with effect from 11th June, 2010, which was challenged by this appellant in a writ petition preferred by her being W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4th September, 2014. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, this appellant has been appointed as Anganwari Sevika vide appointment letter dated 11th August, 2009 and, therefore, any misconduct of the previous period i.e. prior to her appointment cannot be taken into consideration for terminating her services. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, nor, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka while passing the impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 which was challenged in the writ petition. 4. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, nor, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka while passing the impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 which was challenged in the writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the charges levelled against this appellant are serious in nature. She was given all opportunities to explain the charges. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and it has been proved that from 24th June, 2008 to 27th June, 2008, this appellant was absent without any report and without any sanction of leave and she had taken honorarium for the said period also. In fact, no leave was ever granted to this appellant. There is evidence also taken during enquiry process. This evidence has been given by one Ashok Kumar, who is a Clerk of the said centre of District Dumka and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following reasons and facts: - (i) This appellant is the original petitioner who had instituted W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 challenging the order of her termination from service dated 11th June, 2010. This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4th September, 2014. Hence, the original petitioner is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. (ii) It further appears that initially this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as Sevika with effect from 29th July, 207. Thereafter, she has cleared her Matriculation examination and she was appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika with effect from 11th April, 2009. Hence, the original petitioner is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. (ii) It further appears that initially this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as Sevika with effect from 29th July, 207. Thereafter, she has cleared her Matriculation examination and she was appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika with effect from 11th April, 2009. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that upon receipt of complaint, notice was given to this appellant and it was alleged that for the period running from 24th June, 2008 to 27th June, 2008, she was on leave without any permission and she appeared in the Matriculation Examination during this period and she has claimed honorarium for this period and as she has cleared the Matriculation examination, she was further selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika, but the fact remains that for the period during which no leave was granted or sanctioned and she remained absent and she appeared in the Matriculation examination and, on top of it, she claimed honorarium for the absent period also, because of these misconducts, enquiry was conducted, witnesses were examined and charges levelled against this appellant have been proved. (iv) It further appears that there is a fabrication of documents by this appellant. The leave application was forged by this appellant. In fact, there was no leave application at all and she has availed honorarium for the period for which she was absent from duties. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of the impugned order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 dated 4th September, 2014. Hence, We see no reason to alter the decision of the learned Single Judge. No error has been committed in appreciating the facts available on record by the learned Single Judge. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.