( 1. ) THE petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 22-9-97. She is assailing the order of her removal without issuance of show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was appointed after following due selection process as Anganwadi Worker as per order dated 24-9-97 Annexure P-3. She was working at Anganwadi Centre, Udotpura. Petitioner submits that her removal was ordered without issuance of show-cause notice, without conduct of any enquiry, charges were not informed and outrightly she was given the order of

removal. Petitioner further submits that Annexure P-6, memo dated 29-10-96. In para 2 of the said memo as contained in Annexure P-6 the procedure for removal of Anganwadi Workers and Assistants according to which it is necessary that if any Gram Panchayat is aggrieved by the functioning of Anganwadi Worker and Assistant, it has to pass a resolution and send it to the Project Officer and thereupon the Project Officer either himself or through Supervisor has to get the enquiry done into facts within two weeks from the date of receipt of resolution of Gram Panchayat and make a recommendation of Janpad Panchayat. Without recommendation of Project Officer, Janpad Panchayat cannot pass an order removing Anganwadi Worker/assistant. In case any recommendation is made on any of the grounds by the Departmental Authority, same procedure has to be followed and the recommendation has to be sent to Janpad Panchayat.

( 3. ) IN the return filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it is contended that resolution of Gram Panchayat is not necessary as Project Officer can make a recommendation to Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner was not properly discharging the duties on an inspection held on 12-1-2001 it was found no children were present, attendance was also not properly marked and it was inferred that Anganwadi Centre was not properly running. Attendance of pregnant and lactated women was not filled after 3-1-01 and corn soya blend food was not properly distributed. She was not discharging duties properly, as such removal was ordered.

( 4. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. In case there were any charges against the petitioner, an enquiry should have been conducted consistingly in accordance with principles of natural justice.

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the State Shri J. D. Suryavanshi submits that an enquiry was conducted, an inspection was made and removal was ordered on such an enquiry. He has further submitted that spot inspection amounts to conduct of any enquiry and hence order of removal is proper.

( 6. ) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that no reason has been assigned for removal of the petitioner nor any show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. If there were any charges against the petitioner, he ought to have been informed for adverse administrative action carrying civil consequences. In the instance case, nothing was done. No show-cause notice was issued nor any enquiry was done and no charge was framed. The principles of natural justice are inhered in every administrative action carrying adverse civil consequences. In Ku. Neelima Mishra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 1402), the Supreme Court held that the order having civil consequences should be passed consistently with the observance of principles of natural justice. They are inhered in every administrative action carrying civil consequences. The Supreme Court held as under :-We find it difficult to accept the reasoning underlying the aforesaid law. Before we considered the correctness of the proposition laid down by the High Court we must, at the expense of some space, analyses the distinction between quasi-judicial when there is an obligation to adopt the judicial approach and to comply with t