(1.) The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 29.11.2009, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner as District Coordination Commissioner (Guide), Rajnandgaon, has been terminated.
(2.) By order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was appointed on the post of District Coordination Commissioner (Guide) for District Rajnandgaon on honorarium. On 22.2.2008 an advertisement (Annexure P/ 3) was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the regular posts of District Coordination Commissioner through direct recruitment, pursuant to which the petitioner also applied for the post and accordingly by letter dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) she was called for interview on 14.10.2008. According to the petitioner she was appointed as ad hoc District Coordination Commissioner, Rajnandgaon but no formal appointment order was issued. By the impugned order dated 29.11.2009 without holding an enquiry the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that a complaint was received against the petitioner about indiscipline of the petitioner at State headquarter.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis but the impugned order is a stigmatic order, which was passed without conducting an enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. During the service period the petitioner received various appreciations and certificates for her distinguished performance of duties. Thus, the termination of the petitioner is bad in law. In support of his submission learned counsel rely on a decision of Supreme Court in Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and another, 2007 10 SCC 71 wherein it is held that "From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is evident that termination of services of the appellant purporting to discharge him simplicitor cannot be accepted, being stigmatic in nature."