( 2026:HHC:34377 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15374 of 2024. Decided on : 14 th August , 2026. Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of present petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs:- “i) That the oce order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-3), the oce order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) and oce order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed the petitioner may kindly be reinstated into service with all consequential service bene0ts and be directed to be regularized forthwith.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders impugned, this Court does not (nd any merit in the petition. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:34377 ) 3. In terms of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner, who was engaged as a TMPA on consolidated remuneration, was found remiss in his duties to the e.ect that passengers in the bus were found without tickets though the fare had already been collected by the petitioner. In one incident, despite the fact that the bus was overloaded, no tickets were issued by the petitioner to the passengers, who had travelled a distance of 8 kilometers in the bus upto the checking point. This is not just one of the instances of the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, as o1ce order dated 23.07.2023 passed by the disciplinary authority, points out to other instances also where the passengers travelling in the bus, in which the petitioner was a conductor were found ticketless and the amount of tickets otherwise stood collected by the petitioner. 4. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could neither point out that the (ndings returned to this e.ect by the Disciplinary Authority as a1rmed by the Appellate Authority were incorrect or not borne out from the 3 ( 2026:HHC:34377 ) record, nor that any procedural in(rmity was there in the process that was undertaken by the Disciplinary and the Appellate authority in deciding the matter in issue. 5. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Authorities be directed to reconsider the case cannot be accepted because until and unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the quasi-judicial authorities have not acted in accordance with law, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the orders, just on the request of the counsel. 6. The contention of the learned counsel that rather than regularizing the services of the petitioner, his services have been terminated, which is an unjust decision on the part of the respondents, also does not satisfy the Court. This Court fails to understand as to what other treatment has to be meted to a person who is involved in embezzlement other than termination of his services. If in stead of rather than initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, such incumbent is rewarded by regularizing his services or if this Court intervenes with the orders passed by the 4 ( 2026:HHC:34377 ) quasi-judicial authorities and after setting aside the order of termination, directs the authorities to regularize the petitioner, the Court would just be granting premium to the act of the petitioner of indulging in embezzlement. 7. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as this Court does not (nd any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 14th August, 2026. (jai)