ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15-10-2000 passed by the Project Officer, Intigrated Child Development Project, Mawai, District Mandla, (Annexure P-4). 2. Services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated with immediate effect on the ground that complaint was received and was found to be correct. Petitioner was appointed as Aanganbadi worker in village, Baigakhera on August 28th, 1984 by the Project Officer, Intigrated Child Development Scheme, Mandla. Petitioner worked at Baigakhera for seven years. Thereafter she was transferred to village, Dheko in 1994. Her services were abruptly terminated on 15-10-2000 without affording any opportunity of hearing to her. Petitioner submits that complaint filed by Madan Singh was found to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Supervisor in 1999 and also by the Panchayat in May, 2000. In "Samadhan Shivir" organised at Medha, District-Mandla in which the Collector and the Project Officer were present, Madan Singh gave a written complaint on which the services of the petitioner were terminated. No enquiry was conducted; no opportunity was given to explain; the order is illegal and void. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4 in their return contend that while petitioner was working as Aanganbadi Worker, lot of complaints were received. After complaints she was transferred to Aangabadi Centre, Dheko. Certain complaints were received from supervisor; no complaint received from the Gram Panchayat has been placed on record, though it is averred that such complaints were received but it appears to be a wrong reference made in para 4 of the return as to Annexure R/2. Report submitted by supervisor on his visit to the village is relied on as enquiry report. In para 6, the respondents rely on the order dated 27-5-1996 issued by the Government of M. P., Woman and Child Development Department which provides detailed process for removal of Aanganbadi worker/assistant. Report submitted by supervisor on his visit to the village is relied on as enquiry report. In para 6, the respondents rely on the order dated 27-5-1996 issued by the Government of M. P., Woman and Child Development Department which provides detailed process for removal of Aanganbadi worker/assistant. A persual of this order dated 27-5-1996 makes it clear that following is the procedure prescribed for removal of an Aanganbadi worker:- (i) Firstly, the Gram Panchayat has to pass a resolution in case of serious complaint and has to send it to supervisor; (ii) Supervisor has to make an enquiry within fifteen days of receipt of Gram Panchayat resolution and has to make a recommendation on the basis of enquiry to concerned Janpad Panchayat; (iii) Janpad Panchayat in one week thereafter may remove an Aanganbadi worker/assistant; (iv) If supervisor comes to know of serious misconduct, he has to obtain opinion of Gram Panchayat concerned. In case Gram Panchayat consents to the opinion of supervisor, recommendation can be made to Janpad Panchayat concerned for removal of Aanganbadi worker/assistant; (v) In case Janpad Panchayat receives resolution of Gram Panchayat along with report of supervisor of the sector recommending the removal, it shall be mandatory for Janpad Panchayat to order the removal; (vi) In case of difference of opinion between Gram Panchayat and supervisor it would be necessary for Janpad Panchayat to get an enquiry conducted through the Child Development Project Officer and to decide the matter on the basis of enquiry report submitted by Child Development Project Officer. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice; without issue of show cause notice; no enquiry was conducted and the documents which are filed with the return shows that no enquiry was conducted; petitioner was never heard; the charges were not made known to her and some of the documents relate to the period 1994-1995. 5. It is clear that the procedure prescribed in the order dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure R/1) was not followed; Gram Panchayat resolution dated 1-5-2000 (Annexure P/2) shows that Gram Panchayat opined that work and behaviour of the petitioner was proper and complaint of Madan Singh was incorrect. After 1-5-2000, no enquiry was conducted by Child Development Project Officer; supervisor is said to have visited the village on 3-8-2000; he has contacted few villagers; thereafter submitted the report. After 1-5-2000, no enquiry was conducted by Child Development Project Officer; supervisor is said to have visited the village on 3-8-2000; he has contacted few villagers; thereafter submitted the report. It appears that he conducted some oral investigation and did not record the statements of the witnesses and this report was submitted behind the back of the petitioner at the behest of Madan Singh. 6. It is settled law that whenever an enquiry is conducted, report of the same should be made available, that is what is required least for observance of the principles of natural justice as held by the Supreme Court in Ku. Neelima Mishra vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, AIR 1990 SC 1402 . These principles are to be inhered in the removal procedure and have to be treated as part of the scheme of removal contained in Annexure R/1 dated 27-5-1996. In Ku. Neelima Mishra (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- We find it difficult to accept the reasoning underlying the aforesaid view. Before we consider the correctness of the proposition laid down by the High Court we must, at the expense of some space, analyse the distinctions between quasi-judicial and administrative functions. An administrative function is called quasi-judicial when there is an obligation to adopt the judicial approach and to comply with the basic requirements of justice. Where there is no such obligation, the decision is called "purely administrative' and there is no third category. This is what was meant by Lord Reid in Ridge vs. Baldwin, (1963) 2 All ER 66, 75-76. "In cases of the kind with which I have been dealing the Board of Works.... was dealing with a single isolated case. It was not deciding like a Judge in a law suit, what were the rights of the persons before it. But it was deciding how he should be treated-something analogous to a Judge's duty in imposing a penalty.... So it was easy to say that such a body is perfor"ming a quasi-judicial task in considering and deciding such a matter and to require it to observe the essentials of all proceedings of a judicial character the principles of natural justice. Sometimes the functions of a minister of Department may also be of that character and then the rules of natural justice can apply in much the same way.............. Sometimes the functions of a minister of Department may also be of that character and then the rules of natural justice can apply in much the same way.............. An administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in the Latin Maxim audi alteram partem. It a means that the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case. A large number of authorities are on this point and we will not travel over the field of authorities. What is now not in dispute is that the person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Ridge vs. Baldwin 1963 (2) All ER 66 (supra); State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dewi, (1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 . The shift now is to a broader notion of "fairness" or "fair procedure" in the administrative action. The administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly (See: Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 389 at Pp. 393-94.) For this concept of fairness adjudicative setting are not necessary nor it is necessary to have lites inter parties. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a 'lis'. There need not be resolution of lis inter parties. The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely different circumstances. It may arise expressly or impliedly depending upon the context and considerations. All these types of non-adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric of fairness in the administration. But when even such an administrative decision unless it affects one's personal rights or one's property rights, or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would juridically be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistent with the rules of natural justice. We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. 7. But when even such an administrative decision unless it affects one's personal rights or one's property rights, or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would juridically be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistent with the rules of natural justice. We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. 7. In the instant case, the principles of natural justice were utterly violated; the Gram Panchayat did not recommend the removal; it does not appear from the order of removal on what charges the petitioner was removed; no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, thus, order of removal is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. Enquiry and furnishing of its report are also essential ingredients of principles of natural justice as held in Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzam Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , as under:- There is a charge and a denial followed by an inquiry at which evidence is led and assessment of the material before conclusion is reached. These facts do make the matter quasi-judicial and attract the principles of natural justice. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the inquiry officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected.\ 8. Resultantly, the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 15- 10-2000 (Annexure P-4) is quashed. She is directed to be reinstated along with back wages. Cost on parties.