ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following prayer: “to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.59/2023/EGS/HR, dt.07.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby dismissed the petitioner’s Appeal dt.21.09.2024 and confirmed the termination proceedings in Rc.No.59/2023/EGS/HR, dt.11.09.2024, passed by the 3 rd respondent thereby removed the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant working in Dandulaxmipuram Gram Panchayat of Polaki Mandal in Srikakulam District without conducting enquiry without considering her explanation dt.23.07.2024, without furnishing enquiry report dt.06.07.2024 submitted by Assistant Project Director, Narasannapeta Cluster, without considering the grounds of appeal and without passing speaking order as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.11.09.2024 and 07.01.2025 as illegal and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his service for the said post and pass such other orders.” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under MGNREG Scheme in the year 2007 and posted at Dandulaxmipuram Gram Panchayat of Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. Bases on certain allegations, the 3 rd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 25.09.2023, for which petitioner has submitted explanation and after conducting due enquiry, final orders were passed on 11.09.2024 terminating petitioner from services. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal before 2 nd respondent under clause 13(C)(1) of Field Assistants Human Resource Policy, which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 07.01.2025. 3. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I for the 1 st respondent and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while drawing attention to the impugned order, stated that the same is bereft of any reasons though petitioner in memorandum of appeal raised various grounds, the appellate authority did not even advert to and deal with any of such contentions. 5. Learned Government Pleader for services – I for 1 st respondent and learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, tried to justify the impugned order passed by 2 nd respondent confirming the order of primary authority. 6. On perusal of impugned order, the appellate authority, except narrating the facts and sequence of events, in the conclusion part had merely confirmed the order of primary authority without providing any reasons. 6. On perusal of impugned order, the appellate authority, except narrating the facts and sequence of events, in the conclusion part had merely confirmed the order of primary authority without providing any reasons. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by administrative authority or quasi-judicial authority. 7. In M/s.Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others , [ (2010) 9 SCC 496 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 8. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers , [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 9. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai , [ (2008) 15 SCC 711 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 10. This Court is convinced that the order does not deal with objections raised by petitioner and records any specific reasons for rejecting the same. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, since recording of reasons is prerequisite in deciding any proceedings by quasi-judicial body, on that sole ground, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.59/2023/E.G.S/H.R., dated 07.01.2025, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2 nd respondent for de novo consideration. The 2 nd respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order within a period of four weeks. 12. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.