Order : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2015 (Annex.4) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. Briefly noted facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014 on a fixed monthly remuneration. The services of the petitioner were on a probation period of two years. During his probation period, the petitioner was caught carrying the passengers without ticket consecutively on five occasions. The Bus Checking Reports were prepared on all the five occasions and the matter was referred to the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 22.06.2015, however, while proceeding under notices issued, departmental inquiries were pending consideration against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 02.07.2015 by not extending his probation period. Hence, aggrieved against his termination order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order dated 02.07.2015 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in four cases, departmental inquiries were pending and instead of completing those disciplinary proceedings, a shortcut route by way of passing the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 has been adopted by the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated while not confirming his services after completion of his probation period. Learned counsel submits that since the foundation for passing the order dated 02.07.2015 is pendency of four inquiries, therefore, without holding and completing the departmental inquiry, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated by passing the order dated 02.07.2015. He further submits that the order impugned has been passed imposing penalty of termination without holding an inquiry, although the same were pending against the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 02.07.2015 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014 and the petitioner was on a probation period of two years. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 02.07.2015 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014 and the petitioner was on a probation period of two years. He submits that during his probation period, the petitioner was caught carrying the passengers without tickets on five occasions, therefore, the integrity of the petitioner was questionable. He very fairly submits that although notices were issued to the petitioner on four occasions on account of carrying the passengers without tickets, however, during the pendency of the inquiry, the respondents thought it proper to terminate the services of the petitioner while exercising the powers conferred under Rule 8 (iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 . He submits that Rule 8 (iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 confers powers to the Corporation not to confirm the services of a probationer trainee, if the authorities are satisfied that the integrity of a person is questionable. Therefore, the Corporation has considered the entire service record of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that integrity of the petitioner is not unquestionable and therefore, he was not found fit for confirmation and the Corporation has terminated his services. He, therefore, prays that the order passed by the Corporation on 02.07.2015 is just and proper and therefore, the same needs no interference by this court. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 21.02.2014. The services of the petitioner were on a probation period of two years. During the period of probation for two years, the petitioner was caught carrying passengers without tickets and Bus Checking Reports were prepared on all the five occasions. The matter was pending consideration with the respondents for proceeding against the petitioner on the ground of carrying the passengers without ticket. During the period of probation for two years, the petitioner was caught carrying passengers without tickets and Bus Checking Reports were prepared on all the five occasions. The matter was pending consideration with the respondents for proceeding against the petitioner on the ground of carrying the passengers without ticket. At the same time, the services of the petitioner were considered for confirmation and while taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, the respondent authorities thought it proper not to confirm the services of the petitioner in light of provisions of the Rule 8 (iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 which reads as under:- “(iii) A probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of his period of probation if he has successfully passed the prescribed trade test or prescribed departmental examination & if the appointing authority is satisfied that his integrity is unquestionable and he is otherwise fit for confirmation.“ 8. A perusal of Rule 8(iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 clearly shows that services of a probationer shall be confirmed, if he has successfully passed the prescribed trade test or prescribed departmental examination and if the appointing authority is satisfied that his integrity is unquestionable and he is otherwise fit for confirmation. 9. The service record of the petitioner clearly shows that the integrity of the petitioner cannot be said to be unquestionable as he was caught carrying the passengers without ticket on five occasions. This Court is of the view that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for not considering the case of an employee for confirmation in view of Rule 8 (iii) of the Standing Orders of 1965 . In the present case, the service record of the petitioner does not reflects that he is fit for confirmation in view of his integrity being under clouds. This court is firmly of the view that in case of an employee having “doubtful integrity”, he should be dealt with an iron hand and therefore, on this sole ground, confirmation of such an employee can be denied. 10. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent Corporation has rightly taken the decision for not passing the order of confirmation of the petitioner and the order of termination has rightly been passed against him. 11. 10. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent Corporation has rightly taken the decision for not passing the order of confirmation of the petitioner and the order of termination has rightly been passed against him. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed being devoid of merit. 12. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.