( 1. ) AS an Assistant Professor, the petitioner came to be appointed under orders of Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madhya Pradesh, bhopal, as per Annexure P/1. True, her appointment was made on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and another condition of her appointment was that she would be reappointed after break of three days. Alas, trouble arose too early for her to continue and indeed before she completed even six months period, she was told by the Principal, government M. J. S. College, Bhind, to check out. Whether the order Ex. P/16 is a cancerous order is a question which arises primarily for our consideration in this case.

( 2. ) WE read, therefore, the order and extract its text in extenso : "ku. GEETA SHRIVASTAVA, TADARTHA SAHAYAK PRADHYAPAK SAMAJSHASTRA SHASAKIYA M. J. S. MAHAVIDYALAYA BHIND KI PURNATAH TADARTHA ASTHAYI NIYUKTI UNKE NIRANTAR LAMBE ARSE SE ANUPASTHIT RAHANE TATHA KARYA EVAM VYAVAHAR NITANTA ASANTOSHJANAK HONE KE KARAN TATKAL PRABHAV SE SAMAPTA KI JATI HAIN".

Two things which appear very clear in the language used in the extract aforesaid cannot escape our notice. Indeed, two clear and definite charges are mentioned in categorical terms indicating if anything, petitioners misconduct for which she was punished by the impugned order resulting in termination of her services. She was told thar she was continuously absent for a long period and she was further told that her work and conduct was found wholly unsatisfactory.

( 3. ) NO labour indeed we are required to expend to accept petitioners contention that the above order stigmatised her and made it impossible for her to secure employment under the State in future, anywhere and in any manner. On facts, unfortunately for the Stat, it is not disputed that no opportuntiy was aforded to her to satisfy authorities that she did not deserve the stigma, and the impugned order was passed without hearing her at any stage and in any manner. What rather passes our comprehension is that though on the same date, by two separate orders (Nos. 2644 and 2645), show-cause notices as per Annexures P/4 and P/6 were addressed to her and she submitted explanation thereto (Annexures P/5 and P/l), she was not heard in the matter and indeed, there was no enquiry of any sort on the allegations made in those notices. In one notice, it was alleged that on 16-10-1985 and 17-10-1985, she did not hold classes while in the second notice, the same charge is repeated in respect to 18-11-1985, 19-11-1985 and 20-11-1985, saying that she was not regular in teaching work. Strangely enough, as per Annexure P/8, another charge was made against her that she had not submitted explanation as to why she was absent in the months of October and november on 16-10-1985, 17-10-1985 and 18-11-1985 to 20-11-1985. It is in this notice she was warned that not only deduction shall be made from her salary, but her services would also be terminated if proper cause was not shown. To this, she replied as per annexure P/9. We have before us also the copies of medical certificates which the petitioner submitted, namely, Annexures P/10 and P/11 while Annexure P/12 is an application for leave for 15 days and Annexure P/13 is a "fitness Certificate". It is dated 10-1-1986 and Annexure P/14 is the Joining Report which was submitted with it. It is not disputed that she was not allowed to join and as per Annexure P/14, she accordingly made a complaint on 15-1-1986 to the Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Bhopal. About her formal termination of services, we have mentioned already above which is annexure P/16, dated 30-1-1986.

( 4. ) A three-fold contention is urged validly and forcefully, challenging the impugned order afore-quoted. Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order ex facie, stigmatises the petitioner and as such termination of her services without holding an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution must kill the order without much ado. Secondly, petitioner