S.C.Sharma, J.

( 1. ) The petitioner before this Court has filed this petition challenging the order dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Project Director, District Education Centre, Behind, by which his services have been put to an end.

( 2. ) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Misson vide order dated 05.03.1999 on contractual basis for a period of one year. The petitioner has further stated that the tenure was extended from time to time and on 12.06.2009 without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner a stigmatic order was passed for discontinuing the services of the petitioner. He prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order.

( 3. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Trivedi Vs. State Committee, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission and others, 2002 (2) M.P.L.J. 391, Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Misson, Bhopal, 2001(3) M.P.L.J., 616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008(4)M.P.L.J., 670. His contention is that even though the petitioner was serving on contractual basis, the respondents could not have been terminated the petitioner from service without granting any opportunity of hearing especially in view of the fact that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature.

( 4. ) Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the stand of the State is that the petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis on a fixed salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. The tenure of the petitioner was extended from time time. The respondents have also stated that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the impugned order has been passed for discontinuing the services of the petitioner by giving him a months notice. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner has committed gross irregularities and as the petitioner was a contractual employee, no notice nor any fact finding enquiry is necessary in the present case. Respondents have relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1.

( 5. ) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with the consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard and disposed of at motion stage.

( 6. ) In the present case, the petitioner before this Court was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the services of the State Govt, under the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission by an order dated 05.03.1999. The initial appointment reflects that the appointment was for a period of one year. However, the same was extended from time to time. The order of termination dated 12.06.1999 reflects that the petitioner has committed large number of irregularities while serving as Assistant Engineer (contractual basis) and based upon the irregularities committed by the petitioner it was resolved by the District Project Director to discontinue the services of the petitioner. In the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, this Court in paragraph 10 has held as under:- "10. The present factual matrix is to be tested on the aforesaid enunciation of law. To find out whether the order of termination is a termination simpliciter or punitive in nature it is apposite to refer to the order contained in Annexure P-18. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

On a bare glance at the aforesaid order it becomes graphically clear that the petitioners appointment was extended from time to time but during his continuance serious allegations with regard to financial irregularities, were received. The order also reflects that the petitioner was asked to show cause in number of correspondences but the petitioner could not explain the charges levelled against him. It has also been mentioned in the order as the petitioner has committed financial irregularities and has not performed his duties with sincerity the