ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services of Angan Bari Sahayika with full back wages. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 13.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 (Annexure-4 and 4/1) issued by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In view of notification issued by the Department of Social Welfare for appointment of Angan Bari Sevika/Sahayika, in which the petitioner along with others appeared in the process of selection before the Aam Sabha held on 15.04.2015. The Aam Sabha found the petitioner fit for appointment to the post of Angan Bari Sahayika and appointment letter was issued to that effect. Petitioner, upon receipt of appointment letter, joined the said post on 05.10.2015. The appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner continued to work with full satisfaction of the respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioner that one fine morning, the District Transport Officer visited the Angan Bari Centre of Mayadih, P.O. Kathikund under Dumka district. It has been alleged that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not found present on the said centre and as such, a show-cause notice was issued seeking reply from the petitioner along with others as to why their services may not be terminated. In reply to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply mentioning therein that she never absented herself from the Angan Bari Centre which has also been admitted by the said Officer, rather, she had just gone to fetch water from the nearby hand-pump in the school premises itself. However, no consideration has been shown to the reply of the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner along with others were terminated from the services. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations before the respondent-authorities but no consideration has been shown to his representations and hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Md. S. Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order has been passed in haste and mechanically, without giving consideration to the reply of the petitioner. Mr. 4. Md. S. Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order has been passed in haste and mechanically, without giving consideration to the reply of the petitioner. Mr. Ansari further argues that merely because the petitioner had gone to fetch water from the nearby hand-pump which was situated in the school premises itself, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. No chit of paper has been produced that the petitioner was not present at the said Angan Bari Centre at time of inspection. Mr. Ansari further argues that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and direction be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents very fairly submits that on recommendation of the District Transport Officer, the services of the petitioner has been terminated after issuance of show-cause and as such, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. However, learned counsel fairly admits that no consideration has been shown to the reply of the petitioner in the impugned order. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Akhtar submits that the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of unauthorized absent from the Angan Bari Centre. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, no consideration has been shown to the reply of the petitioner. The District Transport Officer had no business to visit the Angan Bari Centre. He is not a designated officer of the Welfare Department neither it has been shown that power was delegated to him or he was authorized to inspect the said Angan Bari Centre. Nothing has been shown in the impugned order that as to why and under what capacity, the District Transport Officer had visited the Angan Bari Centre. The poor Angan Bari Sahayika posted in the said Centre cannot be prevented from fetching water from hand-pump, which is within the school premises itself. As such, the order impugned is purely mechanical and not tenable in the eyes of law. The impugned orders at Annexure-4 and 4/1 are hereby quashed and set aside. The poor Angan Bari Sahayika posted in the said Centre cannot be prevented from fetching water from hand-pump, which is within the school premises itself. As such, the order impugned is purely mechanical and not tenable in the eyes of law. The impugned orders at Annexure-4 and 4/1 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the authority concerned, who has issued the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after considering his show-cause reply. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.