JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners being the regularly selected Conductors in the respondent RSRTC challenging the orders, whereby their probationary services were terminated by the respondents. The matters involve common questions of facts and law and thus, all the writ petitions are being decided together by this single order. For the sake of brevity, the dates of the respective orders terminating the petitioners' probationary services are mentioned in the chart below: W.P. No. Petitioner's name Date of order Annex. 9242/2014 Hanuwant Singh (Barmer Depot) 28.11.2014 Annex.3 9243/2014 Ayub Khan (Barmer Depot) 28.11.2014 Annex.3 9255/2014 Shivprakash Chouhan (Barmer Depot) 02.12.2014 Annex.3 9256/2014 Gordhan Ram (Barmer Depot) 28.11.2014 Annex.3 1154/2015 Dinesh Chand Yadav (Dungarpur Depot) 27.11.2014 Annex.3 2. The petitioners having been selected through a proper selection process, were working as Conductors at the Barmer Depot and Dungarpur Depot in the respondent RSRTC as probationaries. Notices came to be served to them with almost identical allegations of misconduct viz. allowing ticketless passengers to travel in the buses, wherein they were performing duties as Conductors. They were provided with an opportunity of hearing but thereafter, the above mentioned impugned orders came to be passed by the Depot Manager, Barmer directing termination of the probationary services of the petitioners assigning reasons that the petitioners' services were found unsatisfactory during their probation period and thus, they were being terminated from service. Before issuance of the orders under challenge, the respective petitioners were given notices to the effect that disciplinary proceedings were proposed against them but thereafter, instead of conducting inquiry, the orders under challenge came to be passed whereby the petitioners' probationary services were terminated. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions assailing the action of the respondents in terminating their probationary services by the orders under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments in support of the contention that termination of the services of a probationary employee for punitive reasons cannot be ordered without holding a mandatory inquiry as per the service Rules and Regulations and is a mandatory pre-requisite as per Article 311 of the Constitution of India:- 1. Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1706 2. Ramraj Gurjar v. RSRTC & Ors. 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 485 3. Rajendra Kumar v. The Chairman, RSRTC & Ors. 2008(4) WLC 359 4. Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1706 2. Ramraj Gurjar v. RSRTC & Ors. 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 485 3. Rajendra Kumar v. The Chairman, RSRTC & Ors. 2008(4) WLC 359 4. Ashique Ali v. RSRTC Jaipur & Anr. 2009(2) RLW (Raj.) 1162 5. State Bank of India & Ors. v. Palak Modi & Anr. (2013)3 SCC 607 4. Strong reliance was placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramraj Gurjar (supra), wherein, examining the validity of the termination order of a Driver cum Conductor of the respondent Corporation, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that a punitive order of termination from service of a probationary employee has to be preceded by a proper enquiry conducted in accordance with law otherwise such order of termination is rendered bad in law. In that case, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the respondent Corporation on temporary basis. His services continued to be extended from time to time. An FIR was registered against him for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and thereafter, his services were terminated in reference to the FIR. The said action was disapproved by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the above judgment. In the case at hand, the facts are even more stark. Herein, the petitioners were regularly appointed Conductors of the Corporation. They were serving in their probationary period and during the said period, they were served with notices of proposed disciplinary inquiry on allegations of allowing ticketless passengers to travel in the buses in which they were discharging duties. Thereafter, the authorities, rather than proceeding with the proposed disciplinary action, ordered the termination of the petitioners' probationary services by different orders mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. He urged that in cases, where the termination of services of probationary employee is effected by the employer on the ground of unsatisfactory service, and such decision is challenged before the Courts, a distinction has to be drawn between the foundation and the motive of the impugned action. Learned counsel contended that the orders under challenge are terminations simplisitor and cannot be termed to be stigmatic so as to call for any interference in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel contended that the orders under challenge are terminations simplisitor and cannot be termed to be stigmatic so as to call for any interference in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the alternative, he submitted that if at all, this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned action, then liberty be given to the employer to pass fresh orders regarding the continuance/discontinuance of the petitioners' probationary services. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The proposition of law as expounded in the catena of judgments cited at the bar clearly postulates that if the order of a probationary employee's termination is punitive and stigmatic and where the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, then the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. It was further held that in such cases, the Court can lift the veil for examining whether, in the garb of termination simplisitor, the employer had in fact punished the employee for misconduct. Considering the material available on record in its entirety and upon examining the impugned orders on the touchstone of the principles enunciated in the above judgments, this Court is in total agreement with the arguments advanced by the petitioners' counsel that the impugned orders were founded on allegations of misconduct and cannot be termed as orders of termination simplisitor. 8. In the background of the above discussion, the orders under challenge cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 9. Consequently, the writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.11.2014, 28.11.2014 and 2.12.2014, whereby the respective petitioners' probationary services were terminated, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are given liberty to pass a fresh order in the matter if so warranted, after following the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law. 10. Stay petitions are disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. 12. A copy of this order be placed in each file.Appeal allowed in part. *******