ORDER : ANANDA SEN, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2016 as contained in letter No. 108 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Meral, by which, the petitioner has been disengaged as Anganbari Sewika of Kumbhi Centre, Meral. The appellate order dated 22.11.16 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Garhwa, in Misc. (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 06/2016-17 is also under challenge. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sewika at Centre- Kumbhi, Meral. She was working there for last 18 years. It was alleged that on 21.4.2016, an inspection was carried out and the centre was found closed. As the centre was closed, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 21.4.2016. In the said show cause notice, it has been alleged, that the villagers complained that the petitioner seldom remained present in the said centre. The petitioner gave a reply stating therein that on 21.4.2016, as she had to go to Meral, she gave the charge of the Centre to one Daulat Devi, Sahayika, Kumbhi, Meral. The petitioner's explanation was not accepted. The respondent- Child Development Project Officer, Meral, vide order dated 16.5.2016 disengaged the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was registered as Misc. (Aanganbari) Appeal Case No. 06/2016-17. The said appeal was also dismissed, resulting this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for one day's absence, the petitioner has been disengaged. He further submits that the petitioner explained in her reply that she had to go to Meral and she went there after handing over the charge of the Centre to Daulat Devi, Sahayika of the Centre. He also submits that without enquiring into the defence of the petitioner, the order impguned has been passed. He also submits that the second allegation in the notice is about the complaint made by the villagers that the petitioner seldom remains present in the Centre, but to substantiate the said allegation, no enquiry was made by the respondent authorities, thus the orders impugned are absolutely bad and suggests non application of mind. 4. Counsel for the State submits that on 21.4.2016, an inspection was made and it was found that the centre was closed. He further submits that the petitioner was served a show cause notice. He also submits that as the reply was unsatisfactory, the petitioner has been disengaged from her services. 4. Counsel for the State submits that on 21.4.2016, an inspection was made and it was found that the centre was closed. He further submits that the petitioner was served a show cause notice. He also submits that as the reply was unsatisfactory, the petitioner has been disengaged from her services. He further submits that the appellate authority after considering the materials on record, dismissed the appeal, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of removal as well as appellate order. He lastly submits that the petitioner was engaged on contract, so can be removed after issuance of notice. 5. Heard the parties and perused the record. 6. I find that the allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.4.2016, the centre of which, the petitioner was in-charge, was found closed. It was concluded that the petitioner was absent from her duty on 21.4.2016. After issuing a show cause notice and finding the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, she was disengaged from her services for remaining unauthorized absent for one day, though the petitioner has served the centre for last 18 years. I feel that the punishment does not at all commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner. 7. Further, I find that the petitioner had pleaded that the charge of the said centre, on that day was given to one Daulat Devi, Sahayika of the Centre, which prima facie, can be gathered from the document, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Surprisingly, no enquiry made by the respondent authorities on the defence of the petitioner and even the said Daulat Devi was not examined. Once a defence is set forth by the petitioner, the same should have been enquired into by the respondent authorities, before disengaging her. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the appellate authority and only on the ground of one days unauthorized absence, the petitioner was disengaged from her service, which is absolutely bad. Further, it has been brought into notice to this Court that there is a Circular of the Government being Circular No. 3/Sa.Ka.-134/202-Ka-585, issued by the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Jharkand, wherein, in clause 16, it has been mentioned that if an Anganwbari Sewika remains absent for more than 15 days, then only after giving a show cause notice, she can been disengaged/removed. of Jharkand, wherein, in clause 16, it has been mentioned that if an Anganwbari Sewika remains absent for more than 15 days, then only after giving a show cause notice, she can been disengaged/removed. In this case, I find that only for one days absence, the petitioner has been disengaged, which is also in violation of the said Circular of the Government. More over, as held above the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In case of contractual employment also if an allegation is levelled on the employee, the punishment must commensurate with the charge. 7-A. Since the punishment is disproportionate to the charge and the Circular of the Government has also been violated, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of removal dated 16.5.2016 as contained in letter No. 108 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Meral. Consequently, the appellate order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa in Misc. (Anganbari) Appeal Case No. 06/2016-17 is also quashed. The petitioner to be reinstated forth with. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.