JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of order as contained in Memo No.205 dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure-9) issued by Child Development Project Officer, Karra, Khunti, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from her services with immediate effect without assigning any reasons after 35 longs years of her continuous service. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. 2. As per the factual matrix, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Aaganbari Sevika vide Memo No.20 dated 02.05.1987 duly issued by the Deputy Director (Welfare), South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi for the Centre at Chapi, Karra, Khunti and she joined her duties w.e.f. 15.05.1987. After her appointment, she worked with full satisfaction of the respondents at the said Centre, which was situated in a rural area with no facilities like road. On 25.12.2021, the petitioner husband of the petitioner died and as such, the petitioner made an application on 01.01.2022 before the Supervisor, Department of Women & Child Development, Karra, Khunti for information and also requested for grant of leave for the rituals of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner joined her duties, but she became medically unfit due to malaria and she again made an application on 22.03.2022 for grant of one week leave, which was granted to her. However, as the petitioner remained medically unfit, she made another application on 01.04.2022, requesting for few more days of leave. Accordingly, she joined her duties, but again she became ill and made an application on 27.04.2022 before the respondent No.5, informing her illness. On 28.05.2022, she made an application before the respondents that she is now medically fit and willing to join her duties and on 30.05.2022, she joined the duty, but vide letter No.118 dated 10.06.2022 issued by Child Development Project Officer, Karra, Khunti, a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner regarding her absence in the month of April, 2022, wherein, respondent No.3 had visited the said Centre, but the petitioner was absent. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner replied on 11.06.2022, informing the respondents that in April, she was medically unfit and she had already submitted applications regularly before the respondent No.5. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner replied on 11.06.2022, informing the respondents that in April, she was medically unfit and she had already submitted applications regularly before the respondent No.5. However, being not satisfied with her reply, the Child Development Project Officer, Karra, Khunti dismissed the petitioner from services vide Memo No.205 dated 15.09.2022 with immediate effect, which is under challenge. 3. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had worked continuously for 35 years long service under the respondents, it is only because of illness, she remained absent from the duties, but she had made applications regularly before the respondents, annexing the medical certificates also. He further submits that medical certificates, submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. The petitioner was dismissed on the ground that on the visit of higher officials, she was found absent from duties, however, she had already made applications for leave the period in question. The impugned order is passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice and dehors the Rules. The respondents ought to have been considered the 35 years of unblemished service career of the petitioner and without considering the same, the order of dismissal has been issued. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Ashwini Bhusan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner never submitted applications before the respondents, neither any medical certificates have been brought on record to show that she was ill during the said period. Justifying the impugned order of termination/dismissal, learned counsel submits that since she was found absent from the duties when visit was made by the Higher Authorities, rightly she was dismissed/ terminated from the services. He further submits that in the leave applications, neither the date has been mentioned nor the leave was sanctioned by the Lady Supervisor and also receiving was not there. He further submits that in the leave applications, neither the date has been mentioned nor the leave was sanctioned by the Lady Supervisor and also receiving was not there. As per the Guidelines of Aaganbari Sewika, if anyone remained absent for more than 15 days, then CDPO is authorized to remove the concerned Aaganbari Sewika after issuing show cause notice and since the petitioner has remained absent from duties for more than 3-4 months, she was rightly dismissed/ terminated from services after issuance of show cause notice. Learned counsel further argues that there is an alternative remedy to approach the Appellate Authority, but the petitioner without availing the same, directly approached this Hon’ble Court and as such, writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the material on records, it appears that a lady, who was working in a remote area, is entitled for sympathy as also on the ground that few months earlier to the visit of Higher Authorities on the said Aaganwari Centre, there was death in her family that too of her husband. The illness of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved. If it was at all disbelieved, the respondents ought to have inquired the matter, nothing has been brought on record to show that any enquiry was made regarding illness of the petitioner. The order of dismissal/termination cannot be passed like a Monark in the welfare State. Everyone has right to plea that his /her case has to be duly considered. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, has defined ‘What is proper consideration’. 6. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability and availability of alternative remedy is concerned, no doubt when an alternative remedy is available, without availing the same, writ petition is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. Since no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and as such, the same is cryptic and non –speaking order and as such, the Court is fully empowered to consider the case of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Whirphool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , wherein, it has been held that “15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Whirphool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , wherein, it has been held that “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field”. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and guidelines, the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, same is hereby quashed and set aside and in view thereof, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner, with all consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.