1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.6.2005 (Annexure P9) by which his services have been terminated by the 3rd respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed initially vide order dated 30.1.1996 on contract basis on the post of District Project Coordinator, Dhar under "Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (for short, 'RGPSM'). The period of his appointment was extended from time to time upto 30.4.2005. The 3rd respondent, Mission Director Jila Shiksha Kendra, Dhar issued an order dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P-6), directing the 4th respondent to take the additional charge of the post of District Project Coordinator Dhar from the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation and filed a writ petition No. 1041 of 2005 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.6.2005, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's

representation within four weeks. However, the respondents had passed the impugned termination order dated 18.6.2005 (Annexure P-9) informing therein that the decision has been taken on 14.6.2005 by State Level Appointment Committee, not to extend his period of appointment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 18.6.2005; the petitioner has filed his petition.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he was working since 1996 on the post of District Project Coordinator at Dhar. His work was satisfactory and as such the impugned order of termination is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply and have stated that petitioner was appointed on contract basis. He was found to have indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of the dignity of the RGPSM, and in the circumstances his services have rightly been terminated. It is further stated that a notice dated 7.5.2004 (Annexure R1) was issued to the petitioner to show cause about the alleged illegalities in purchases. His reply Annexure R-2 was not found satisfactory by the Mission Director and as such a letter dated 9.8.2004 (Annexure R-3A) was sent by the Mission Director to the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra, Bhopal for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thereafter a three member Committee enquired into the illegalities and irregularities in the purchases and submitted its report dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure R-4) to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter by the State Level Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 14.6.2005 took a decision to terminate the petitioner's services being unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed which is perfectly justified.

5. Petitioner had filed Rejoinder pointing that the impugned termination order is stigmatic in nature and is based upon an enquiry which was conducted without affording an opportunity of hearing to him and behind his back.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents filed by them.

7. After going through the impugned order; averments made in the petition; reply and rejoinder, it is clear that the respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging the irregularities committed by him in purchasing various articles. Thereafter a three member Committee enquired and found illegalities and irregularities in the purchases. The decision of the Committee was on the basis of enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner. On the foundation of such report, the State Level Appointment Committee held the petitioner's services to be unsatisfactory and took decision to terminate him from service.

8. True, It IS that in the impugned order no allegation about unsatisfactory record or misconduct has been mentioned. However, a reference has been made in the said order of termination about the decision dated 14.6.2005 taken by the said State Level Appointment Committee in an enquiry co