WP(C) 4269/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hea rd Mr. B. C. Saikia, learned senior Addl. Govt. Advocate who represents the offi cial residents. 2. The petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Worker against Tolargram Part -I-Middle A/Centre No. 117 by appointment order dt. 4.12.95 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Sonai, Cachar. Thereafter the petitioner joined in her engaged work as Anganwadi Worker and she was deputed for the on the Job Trai ning which she successfully completed by securing ’A’ Grade in 1996. 3. Sometime in March, 2002, the petitioner developed some medical complicac ies and she consulted the Doctors at the Silchar Medical College Hospital. On 17 .3.02 the petitioner was advised by the Silchar Doctors to proceed to the Gauhat i Medical College Hospital (GMCH) for further treatment. She was under treatment at GMCH from 19.3.02 to 6.4.02, as has been certified by the Doctor of GMCH on 6.4.02 (Annexure-H). It may be mentioned that the petitioner sought leave of absence to proceed to Gu wahati by her application dt. 19.3.02 (Annexure-G). 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner tha t taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence, a show cause notice dt. 23.6.02 was issued against the petitioner for being absent, without cause with a directi on to furnish her reply within three days from the date of the said show cause n otice dt. 23.6.02. On 1.4.02, a second show cause notice was issued because of purported non-filing of reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice dt. 23.6.02 directing the p etitioner to furnish her reply within 24 hours of the said 2nd show cause notice . 5. As the petitioner was under treatment in GMCH at Guwahati, she was total ly unaware about the said show cause notices which were never received by her an d within two days of the second show cause notice, an order dt. 3.4.02 was issue d by the CDPO, Sonai, whereby the petitioner was disengaged as Anganwadi Worker. It is further submitted that soon after disengagement of the petitioner the resp ondent No. 5 has been engaged in place of the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. M.H. Choudhury , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conten ds that the absence of the petitioner was because she was availing medical treat ment at Guwahati on the basis of advice received by her from senior physician at Silchar Medical College and if the authorities would have acted bona fide again st the petitioner, they would have given reasonable time to enable her to furnis h her response to the show cause notices. But by giving 3 days’ time for reply t o the first show cause and only 24 hours time for reply to the second show cause notice, the authorities have clearly revealed their biased mind to remove the p etitioner from her service at any cost, to accommodate the respondent No. 5 in h er place. 7. Mr. B.C. Saikia, learned senior Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that becaus e of the failure of the petitioner to respond to the show cause notices within t he stipulated period, the impugned termination order has been issued against her and only because the petitioner has been disengaged, the respondent No. 5 has b een engaged in the vacant post for smooth functioning of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. 8. From the submissions made and the materials available, it appears that t he petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Worker after proper selection by way o f written test and viva voce and she had rendered about seven years of service p rior to the impugned disengagement order. Nothing is available on record to show that during the said period, the petitioner was negligent in performing her dut ies or was absent without authorization from her duties . Only when the petition er was forced to leave station to receive medical treatment from GMCH, Guwahati under proper medical advice of the Doctor at Silchar Medical College, the respon dent authorities proceeded to treat the absence of the petitioner as unauthorize d and issued her the show cause notice on 26.3.02 directing her to respond withi n three days. Naturally the petitioner being away could not give her response and the 2nd show cause notice dt. 1.4.02 issued to her giving only 24 hours time to the petition er for filing her response. Since the petitioner remained at Guwahati till 6.4.0 2, she could not respond to the second show cause notice as well and eventually on 3.4.02 the impugned disengagement order was issued against her. 9. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that the respondent authori ties had made up their mind to disengage the petitioner from her service, since in the perception of this Court, reasonable time was not afforded to the petitio ner to give her response since only three days’ time for the first show cause an d 24 hours time for the second show cause was given to the petitioner, to file h er response. Possibly, such unreasonably less time was granted with the clear kn owledge that within the limited time, the petitioner would not be able to file h er responses to the show cause notices. Subsequently on alleged failure of the petitioner to respond to the show cause n otices, the impugned disengagement order in great haste was issued on 3.4.02 onl y, two days after the show cause notice dt. 1.4.02. 10. From a consideration of the entire back drop of the case, I am of the vi ew that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the show c ause notices because of the unreasonably less time that was made available to he r. The authorities also did not wait for a reasonable period before proceeding t o issue the impugned disengagement order. This clearly reveals the biased and pr e-determined attitude of the authorities. 11. In view of the above conclusion, I am of the view that the impugned dise ngagement order dt. 3.4.02 (Annexure- K) is not sustainable in law as the same h as been issued on the basis of an unfair and unreasonable process. Such process was obviously a motivated one and cannot at all be sustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to re-engage the pe titioner in her original assignment within four weeks from the date of receipt o f this order. 13. Since the respondent No. 5 has not appeared to contest the allegations, it is directed that if disengagement of the respondent No. 5 is required for ree ngagement of the petitioner, the authorities may do so to give effect to this Co urt’s order. 14. This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No cost.