JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner an Anganbari Sevika of the Centre Babupur Kumhar Tola under Panchkathiya Bazar Panchayat Code No.36 was appointed on 22nd October 1992 vide Annexure-1 issued by the respondent no.7- the Child Development Project Officer, Barhait. She was served with a show-cause bearing letter no.233 dated 17th July 2017 (Annexure-3), acting on the instruction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj contained in memo no.208 dated 17th July 2017 with the following charges :- 3. On inspection conducted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj on 17th July 2017 at 9.45 A.M. the Anganbari Centre was found closed and both Sevika/petitioner herein and Sahayika Rambha Devi were found absent; bird drops were found inside the centre which was in a dirty condition; Sahayika informed that last Poshahar/Khichdi was prepared on 10th June and thereafter it has not been prepared; relevant registers such as ration register etc. were taken away. 4. These acts reflected irregular and irresponsible behavior in discharge of duties on the part of the Sevika as well as Sahayika, both of whom were asked to reply within 24 hours. In her reply at Annexure-4, petitioner specifically contended that she had gone for treatment to Barhait Hospital for certain severe pain in her ears on the fateful day after instructing the Sahayika to open the Centre which she failed to do. The Sahayika always has a duplicate key of the Centre. The son of Sahayika is in the Army and she always exercises influence and fails to cooperate in the conduct of the Centre. As a result she alone has to undertake all the works in the Centre. She had also enclosed the medical prescription to her reply which according to her could be verified from the Mukhiya of the Panchayat Panchkathiya Bazar. She further stated that neighbours have kept pigeons which make the premises of the Centre dirty but they are cleaned on regular basis. Since she had gone for treatment on that day, the Centre was not cleaned by the Sahayika despite her request. She further refuted that Poshahar has not been prepared since 10th June. According to her it was prepared till 30th June, though Poshahar was supplied for the Centre in question till May only. Since she had gone for treatment on that day, the Centre was not cleaned by the Sahayika despite her request. She further refuted that Poshahar has not been prepared since 10th June. According to her it was prepared till 30th June, though Poshahar was supplied for the Centre in question till May only. She had prepared the Poshahar on the basis of her own loan and was not in a position to prepare Poshahar further. The relevant registers of the Centre are kept in her house for security reasons as they are official records and documents. The Centre is being run in a regular manner which can be duly verified through inquiry from Mukhiya, Ward Member and other villagers. She accordingly prayed for sympathetic treatment with assurance to improve any such lapses found in running the Centre in future. Treatment papers dated 17th July 2017 are also enclosed to the reply (Annexure-4). Annexure-5 bearing memo no. 293 dated 3rd August 2017 issued by the respondent no.7 is the impugned decision along with the letter at Annexure-5/A dated 29th July 2017 issued by the respondent no.6- District Social Welfare Officer, Sahebganj. Both these letters do not at all deal with the explanation of the petitioner, though the letter at Annexure-5/A issued by the respondent no.6 only makes a reference of it. It further makes reference of the recommendation of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj on the File No.1-16/2017-18. 5. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned decision submits that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s reply by proper application of mind. For absence of one day only found during inspection, which has also been properly explained with supporting medical prescription, petitioner has been terminated from service though she has served the Centre as Anganbari Sevika since her appointment on 22nd October 1992. He submits that in similar circumstances the order of termination from service for absence of one day was found to be shockingly disproportionate for the alleged misconduct and accordingly quashed by this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013(4) JLJR 301 (Annexure-7). Therefore, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed. 6. Counsel for the State has supported the decision impugned and further relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013(4) JLJR 301 (Annexure-7). Therefore, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed. 6. Counsel for the State has supported the decision impugned and further relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. He has made specific reference to the clauses contained in appointment letter wherein the services of such Sevika would be terminated within 15 days’ notice. The C.D.P.O. is the appointing authority and the Deputy Development Commissioner is the approval authority in connection with the Anganbari Centre. He has argued that inspection by the D.D.C. himself on 17th July 2017 found the Centre closed and both the Sevika and the Sahayika absent. Accordingly the C.D.P.O., Barhait was asked to serve show-cause notice upon them and to furnish a reply within 24 hours. He also commented upon supervision/monitoring on the part of CDPO of such Centre. The Sahayika was called from her house to open the Centre. The D.D.C. found the Centre’s premises quite dirty and it was also informed by the Sahayika that Poshahar is not being prepared since 10th June 2017. The entire ration register, etc. have also been kept by the Sevika at her home and since 1 and ½ months beneficiaries children had not been given meals. Based on this instruction the show cause was served on the petitioner and the Sahayika. She also furnished her reply where after the decision to terminate her from the post of Sevika was taken as there were serious lapses in running of the Centre. Petitioner has only tried to shift the blame upon the Sahayika. The case of Pinki Devi (supra) relied upon by the petitioner also does not strictly apply to her case. 7. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant material facts borne from record. I have also perused the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission. 8. The impugned orders at Annexure-5 and 5/A have been passed with a finding of irregularity in running of the Anganbari Centre at Babupur Kumhar Tola under Panchkathiya Bazar in Barhait Block as noticed during inspection by the D.D.C. on 17th July 2017. 8. The impugned orders at Annexure-5 and 5/A have been passed with a finding of irregularity in running of the Anganbari Centre at Babupur Kumhar Tola under Panchkathiya Bazar in Barhait Block as noticed during inspection by the D.D.C. on 17th July 2017. However, the impugned orders do not reflect any consideration on the show-cause of the petitioner where she had explained the specific charges relating to her absence on the date of inspection i.e. for one day and also allegations relating to non-preparation of Poshahar since 10th June. The counter affidavit of the State also does not specifically deal with the explanation furnished by the petitioner that the Poshahar was being prepared till 30th June though it had been supplied only till May 2017. Medical prescription furnished in support of her treatment on 17th July 2017 have also not been taken into note by the respondents while passing the impugned order. Petitioner on her part has also enclosed a representation of several villagers of the Centre Babupur asking for action against the Sahayika (Annexure-6). According to her the Sevika does not obey the instruction of the petitioner and neither does she cooperate in the conduct of the Centre. Petitioner has worked as Anganbari Sevika for 25 years. No other instance of irregularity or habitual absence have been shown on the part of the respondents against her. In such circumstances the impugned decisions suffer on more than one counts. Respondents have failed to show proper application of mind to the reply to the show-cause furnished by the petitioner. Apparently the Centre was found closed and both Sevika and Sahayika were found absent. However, the statements of the Sahayika have been relied upon by the D.D.C. as reflected from Annexure-A dated 17th July 2017 and also the show-cause of the same date issued by the respondent no.7 upon the petitioner as well as the Sahayika. 9. In these circumstances, the punishment of termination from the post of Anganbari Sevika definitely appears to be disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon the case of Smt. Pinki Devi (supra) whose termination for one day’s absence was quashed as being shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct by this Court. It further appears that in the case of Krishna Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand & Ors. Petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon the case of Smt. Pinki Devi (supra) whose termination for one day’s absence was quashed as being shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct by this Court. It further appears that in the case of Krishna Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012(1) JCR 342 (Jhr.) also this Court in similar circumstances has been pleased to set aside the termination order of such person passed for absence for only one day. 10. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded herein above, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as on facts. It is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.