JUDGMENT - PATIL NARESH H., J.:---This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emerges out of facts which are narrated, in nutshell, as below : The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk on 2nd January, 1964 in Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Beed. He was thereafter, transferred on promotion as agent in the year, 1966. While working in the bank, there was a complaint lodged against the petitioner for misappropriation of amount to the tune of Rs. 10,700/-. Criminal Case No. 548 of 1967 was lodged against the petitioner and one D.S. Gondkar who was working as cashier at the relevant time. Both the accused persons were held guilty and convicted for offence under sections 409 and 120-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in the month of April, 1968. The criminal revision application filed by the petitioner in the High Court at Bombay was dismissed in the month of August, 1968 at the admission stage itself. The petitioner had to undergo sentence was pardoned. After he was released from the prison, the petitioner completed his graduation in B.A. in the year 1972. In February, 1971 the petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. He was interviewed on 19-12-1971 and was selected on 20th April, 1972. The petitioner worked as Upper Division Clerk from 10-6-1978 to 8-7-1980. He was further promoted as Head Clerk on 9-7-1980. He was promoted as Establishment Superintendent w.e.f. 26-12-1989. The petitioner was conferred grade of Assistant Personal Officer some time in the year, 1987. 2. One Mr. M.N. Ghodke, Head Clerk at Beed Division of M.S.E.B. who was President of Union of Employees, made complaint in the month of February, 1988, addressed to the Chief Minister, complaining that the petitioner was previously convicted for a serious offence and still he was appointed and retained in service of the M.S.E.B. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to the Head Office of the M.S.E.B. 3. The M.S.E.B. issued summary charge-sheet dated 27-4-1989 to the petitioner wherein two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The M.S.E.B. issued summary charge-sheet dated 27-4-1989 to the petitioner wherein two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The charges were levelled under Regulation 10(a) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Service Regulations), which are as under : "1) The Temporary misappropriation of the L.T.C. Advance, dishonesty in connection with the affairs of the Board (Sr. Nos. 14 Sch. 'B' appended to the M.S.E.B. Employees' Service Regulation read with note below S.W 86(4). 2) Making false statement/suppressing of material information about your conviction (Sr. No. 29 of Sch. 'B' appended to the M.S.E.B. Employees Service Regulations read with note below S.R. 86(4)." 4. The petitioner replied the charges levelled against him by communication dated 5-6-1989 denying the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. 5. Respondent No. 3, the Additional Director (EST), M.S.E.B. passed an order of termination of the services of the petitioner on 26-9-1989 which was received by the petitioner on 28-9-1989. The respondent No. 3 had communicated that the charge regarding "making false statement/suppressing of material information about conviction" was fully sustained and proved. But, considering the length of service and seriousness of consequences of dismissal, the competent authority was of the view to direct termination of the services from Board w.e.f. the date of service of the order as per Regulation 10(a) r.w. Regulation 90 of the Service Regulations. It was further directed to pay salary for two months in lieu of notice to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of termination of his services on 7-10-1989 to the Member (Adm.)/Secretary, M.S.E.B. i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. On 8th November, 1989 the first Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner that his departmental appeal was dismissed as no new point was raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo. The order of termination of the petitioner was, therefore, confirmed and the stay granted by the first appellate authority to the order of termination was vacated. 7. The petitioner, on 26-12-1989, preferred a further appeal (second) addressed to the Chairman of M.S.E.B. through departmental channel as per the Service Regulations. The petitioner claims to have personally met the Chairman, M.S.E.B. on various dates and requested the authority to consider the appeal sympathetically. 7. The petitioner, on 26-12-1989, preferred a further appeal (second) addressed to the Chairman of M.S.E.B. through departmental channel as per the Service Regulations. The petitioner claims to have personally met the Chairman, M.S.E.B. on various dates and requested the authority to consider the appeal sympathetically. As there was no communication till May, 1991, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1216/1991 in the High Court seeking directions to the respondent No. 1 to decide the second appeal of the petitioner within two months. The High Court by an order dated 5-9-1991 (Exh. F), directed the authorities to decide the appeal within four months. 8. The petitioner's appeal was accordingly, decided by the second appellate authority by an order dated 4th November, 1991 on humanitarian grounds. The order of termination was set aside and the following order was passed : "1. Reversion to the post of 'Head Clerk' and debarring from promotion till retirement. 2. Withdrawal of the benefit of higher grade under G.O. 74 granted to you. Further the period from the date of termination of your service till your re-joining as Head Clerk in pursuance of this order and posting order being issued separately, shall be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay and allowances." 9. The petitioner was not still satisfied by the order of the second appellate authority and he preferred this petition in the High Court. The petition was admitted on 21st March, 1994 by this Court. 10. The respondent M.S.E.B. filed the reply on 14th June, 1993 and contested the matter on merits. On behalf of the petitioner the learned Advocate Shri Sukhdeo Shelke submitted that the impugned orders of termination and reversion are bad in law and not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In his submission, the reliance placed on Rule 10(a) of the Service Regulations cannot be applied retrospectively. Rule 10(a) was introduced in the Rules by modifying earlier Rule on 8-3-1973. As the petitioner had secured services with the M.S.E.B. in the year, 1972, the Board cannot resort to the application of Rule 10(a) and punish the petitioner for violation of the same. It was submitted that the petitioner was not charged for any particular misconduct as stipulated in the Service Regulations (Schedule 'B' acts of misconduct). As the petitioner had secured services with the M.S.E.B. in the year, 1972, the Board cannot resort to the application of Rule 10(a) and punish the petitioner for violation of the same. It was submitted that the petitioner was not charged for any particular misconduct as stipulated in the Service Regulations (Schedule 'B' acts of misconduct). On factual aspect, it was submitted that the petitioner had rendered services to the Board without any grievances and his service record with the Board was good. His case was favourably recommended during the course of the proceedings initiated against him by one Ex. Member of the Board Mr. Ramrao Awargaonkar by communication dated 4-6-1990. The internal circular issued by the Board to its officers for condoning such lapses occurring on the part of the employees in certain circumstances was also relied upon. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India. Shri Shelke, further relied upon the General Order No. 74 issued by the Board dated 13-4-1974. He placed reliance on a reported judgment in the case of (Resiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another)1, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 504. 11. Shri H.T. Joshi, learned Advocate for the M.S.E.B. contended that the Chairman in Second appeal had converted the order of termination into reversion looking to the length of service of the petitioner with the Board and on humanitarian ground. He has drawn our attention to the application form which was filed in by the petitioner while securing services with the Board. Clause 23(b) of the said form reads as under : "Whether you were or have been involved in any criminal proceedings in a Court and if so with what result". ......."Nil". 12. Relying on this clause, it was submitted that as the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for criminal offence, it was obligatory for him to disclose the fact of his being convicted and sentenced in a criminal proceeding while filling in the form, more particularly, item No. 23(b). Shri Joshi, learned Advocate placed reliance on Service Regulations framed by the Board. Schedule "B" of the said regulations stipulates the acts of misconduct which are 38 in number. He placed reliance on Item No. 29, which reads as under : "29. Shri Joshi, learned Advocate placed reliance on Service Regulations framed by the Board. Schedule "B" of the said regulations stipulates the acts of misconduct which are 38 in number. He placed reliance on Item No. 29, which reads as under : "29. Making a false statement or making false complaint." He also placed reliance on Item No. 22, which reads as under : "22. Breach of any Rules, Regulations, circulars, orders, or instructions." 13. It was submitted that proper hearing was given to the petitioner and it was not correct on the part of the petitioner to raise a point that he was not heard by the appellate authorities. In his submissions, the petitioner was raising technical grounds to get the order of reversion set aside by this Court. The petitioner had given a declaration to the effect that he had carefully read and understood the instructions and the entries made by him in the form were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Shri Joshi further contended that the petitioner further relied upon Regulation 11 of Classification Recruitment Regulations, 1961. The said Regulation No. 11 is reproduced as below : "11. No person shall be eligible for appointment in the services of the Board if he/she is declared insolvent by the Competent Court or convicted in a Criminal Court for any offences which in the opinion of the Competent authority is considered insuitable for employment in view of the surrounding circumstances and gravity of the offence. The services of an employee so convicted shall be liable for termination without the necessity of enquiry or any disciplinary proceedings." 14. We have heard both the sides. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that no charge was levelled against the petitioner for committing misconduct of any of the Service Regulation cannot be sustained. The summary charge-sheet stipulates specifically two charges levelled against the petitioner. The Charge No. 2 makes a reference to Item No. 29 of Schedule "B" of the Service Regulations read with Note S.R. 86. As there was a clear reference made to the specific misconduct committed by the petitioner, he cannot have any grievance now to say that the charge levelled against him was not of commission of misconduct under the Service Regulations. As there was a clear reference made to the specific misconduct committed by the petitioner, he cannot have any grievance now to say that the charge levelled against him was not of commission of misconduct under the Service Regulations. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that Service Regulation No. 10(a) was not applicable in his case as it was introduced by way of modification on 8-3-1973. This ground will not support the case of the petitioner as the petitioner was aware while filling in the application form that he was a convicted person. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to explain in the column at Item No. 23(b) regarding his conviction and sentence in the criminal case, while securing the services with the Board. The learned Counsel appearing for the Board also placed reliance on Regulation No. 11 as framed in 1971 which was reproduced in the affidavit-in-reply, as follows : "No person will be eligible for appointment or to be continued in the service of the Board if he is or had been convicted in a Court of Law for any offence involving moral turpitude or adjudged as an insolvent." 15. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that he was not properly heard by the authorities, we are satisfied that proper opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner by the Board. We see no violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India in this case. 16. The petitioner, as is seen from the record, has deliberately suppressed the information of his being previously convicted in a criminal case, which is certainly a ground on which the Board was justified to initiate action and pass necessary orders. The charges were made clear to the petitioner, the petitioner understood the same and canvassed his case upto the stage of second appeal, exhausted all the remedies under the Service Regulations. We have found that the order of the Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board while considering the second appeal of the petitioner, is based purely an humanitarian grounds as the petitioner had rendered continuous service of 18 years in the Board. The Chairman also considered that harsh punishment would render the family of the petitioner to severe hardship. 17. The petitioner has relied upon a decision in Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel's case (supra). The Chairman also considered that harsh punishment would render the family of the petitioner to severe hardship. 17. The petitioner has relied upon a decision in Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel's case (supra). The Apex Court has observed that unless either in the Certified Standing Order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct. 18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the ratio of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel's case (supra), cited by the petitioner, would not strengthen petitioner's case any further. 19. It was lastly contended by the petitioner that the punishment awarded to him in the second appeal by the Chairman was also harsh. The High Court while, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be justified in interfering with the awarding of punishment by the departmental authorities. We place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hotilal)2, 2003 A.I.R. S.C.W. 801 wherein it is observed by the Apex Court, thus- "Disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to accede to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. No interference is called for in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. -----