JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 18th February, 2010 whereby the services of the petitioner who was engaged as Transport Multipurpose Assistant (conductor) have been terminated. 2. The main ground taken for terminating the services is that this was the 5th occasion on which the petitioner was found involved in a case wherein persons were travelling without ticket in his bus. It is not disputed that there are guidelines laid down as to how action has to be taken against the Transport Multipurpose Assistant (conductor) in regard to such cases. The relevant portion of the policy reads as follows:- "1st case Penalty equivalent to five times of the amount of the case and a warning. 2nd case Penalty equivalent to ten times of the amount of the case with a warning. 3rd case Penalty equivalent to twenty times of the amount of the case involved in the case and a warning. 4th case Penalty equivalent to twenty times of the amount involved in the case with final warning for cancellation of the contract. 5th case Contract to be cancelled." 3. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the policy has to be read in one contract. According to her all five conditions should take place during one contract only to invite the penalty of cancellation of contract. The petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis on 23.9.2004 and thereafter a contractual agreement was entered into between him and the HRTC on 5.12.2006 for a period of one year. This contract was later renewed from 4.10.2007 to 3.10.2008, 5.10.2008 to 4.10.2009 and finally from 6.10.2009 to 5.10.2010. The submission of Mrs. Parmar is that only the faults committed by the petitioner during the period from 6.10.2009 to 5.10.2010 can be taken into consideration. 4. I am unable to accept this argument. We are dealing here with a default which virtually amounts to corruption. The default is that the conductor takes money from the passengers but does not issue them tickets and pockets the money. The HRTC in my view has already taken a very liberal view in the matter and in its policy/guidelines has given different categories or levels of punishment for first to 4th offence when only fine is to be imposed. The default is that the conductor takes money from the passengers but does not issue them tickets and pockets the money. The HRTC in my view has already taken a very liberal view in the matter and in its policy/guidelines has given different categories or levels of punishment for first to 4th offence when only fine is to be imposed. It is only when the person is caught for the 5th time indulging in the same malpractice that it has been directed that the contract should be cancelled. I see no reason why the penalty imposed during the period of earlier contract(s) should not be taken into consideration. It is the same person who is in the employment under the same employer. The HRTC has taken a view that up to four offences penalty of fine can be imposed. It is only on the 5th occasion that the contract has to be cancelled. It would be travesty of justice if this is read to mean that only the offences in a particular year of the contract are to be taken into consideration. This would mean that any conductor with immunity could be caught for four times every year but his services will not be terminated. This is not the purpose of the policy. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.