JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J —Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dt. 19th May, 2014, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of misconduct being committed by him, carrying the passengers without ticket. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is punitive in nature and without holding the regular departmental inquiry, services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. 3. Counsel submits that Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1407/2016 (Managing Director & Anr. Vs. Tara Chand Mahawar and Anr.) and other connected petitions decided on 13th January, 2017, has also taken a view that order of termination on the ground of misconduct can only be passed after regular enquiry is being conducted against the employee. 4. The Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1407/2016 (Managing Director & Anr. Vs. Tara Chand Mahawar and Anr.) and other connected petitions, decided on 13th January, 2017, has passed the following order which is reproduced as hereunder:- "Admitting appeal on that point will be detrimental to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the alternative submission made by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG, which has been accepted that the reinstatement which has been directed by the learned Single Judge will be subject to further enquiry against the present respondents and pending that enquiry, they will not ask for any benefit of confirmation since they are on probation. While examining the matter, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The order of termination is confirmed only in view of the fact that the enquiry was not conducted. We are not expressing any opinion on the alternative remedy or anything but the reinstatement will be subject to enquiry which shall be allowed to be conducted by the appellant with rider that the respondent will not be entitled for confirmation till pendency of the enquiry." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sandeep Pathak submits that the view taken by the employer while passing the impugned order dt. 19th May, 2014, was looking to the fact of serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, who was working on the post of Conductor. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sandeep Pathak submits that the view taken by the employer while passing the impugned order dt. 19th May, 2014, was looking to the fact of serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, who was working on the post of Conductor. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that even during probation period, the petitioner had to render satisfactory service and the employer invoking Rule 13 (II) of Jaipur City Transport Services Ltd. Service Condition Standing orders, 2012, passed the impugned order. 6. Counsel for the respondent, however, does not dispute the legal position and only submits that the regular enquiry will be conducted against the petitioner and in case he found guilty, the necessary action will be taken. 7. This Court in the case of Managing Director & Anr. Vs. Tara Chand Mahawar and Anr. has already taken a view that if enquiry was not conducted against an employee, the employer is free to conduct enquiry and the employee concerned will not be entitled for confirmation till pendency of the enquiry. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dt. 19th May, 2017 is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to hold enquiry against the petitioner and petitioner would not be entitled for any consequential benefits as well as confirmation till pendency of the enquiry. It is also made clear that the petitioner is found to be exonerated in the department enquiry, the consequence will follow. 9. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Order accordingly.