JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. On 18.02.2010, services of the petitioner (appellant herein), who was engaged as a Transport Multipurpose Assistant (Conductor), were terminated. 2. Such order of termination came to be assailed but not finding favour with the submission of the petitioner, CWP No. 2358 of 2010, titled as Mohinder Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr., came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in terms of the impugned order dated 25.05.2011. 3. It is the Policy of the State that if a person is found guilty of having committed misconduct five times, the contract is to be cancelled. That petitioner’s appointment was on contractual basis, is not in dispute. 4. What is alleged by the petitioner is that such acts of misconduct resulting into imposition of penalty, necessarily have to be within the same contractual period and not the entire period of service, though contractual in nature, for which the petitioner came to be engaged. 5. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, rightly repelled such contention. There cannot be any premium on misconduct more so when dishonesty and impropriety is an issue. In fact, with the very first instance of misconduct, petitioner’s contract ought not to have been renewed. There cannot be any premium for dishonesty. Petitioner was found guilty of corruption. His initial appointment was w.e.f. 23.09.2004. After expiry of one year, it came to be renewed till the time the authorities, finding the petitioner to be incorrigible, removed him from service vide order dated 18.02.2010. In six years, petitioner had committed serious acts of misconduct on more than five occasions. 6. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.05.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.2358 of 2010, titled as Mohinder Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr. As such, present appeal stands dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.