ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his order of removal from his service dated 28-3-1988 (Annexure A/96) and the order dated 26-6-1989 dismissing the review petition by Secretary of M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and another order passed on 20-2-1992. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to provide the petitioner his original seniority which he was holding prior to the order of removal and further direction to give the monetary benefit including higher pay-scale and to consider petitioner for promotion. In brief the case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure A/20 which is a letter addressed to the petitioner dated 13-1-1986 it was proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him on the basis of Article of charge. There are as many as four charges which are in respect of unauthorised issuance of four conductor drums, from the area store Chhattarpur on his pre-signed indents when he was not holding the charge of Assistant Engineer, CSD Panna, which amounted to fraud with dis-honest intention in violation to rule 3 of M.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 adopted by the Board. The petitioner was further charged that out of four said conductor drums, he misappropriated two of them costing nearabout Rs. 45,000/- thereby causing a serious financial loss to the Board. The other two charges were in respect to non-maintenance of M.A.S. Registers for accounting of receipts, issues and utilization of major materials like ACSR and all alluminium conductors of various sizes, R.S. Joists and cement in the prescribed formats, in his own handwriting by the petitioner, as per instructions of the Board and he used to pre-sign blank indents in large number in advance and keep them with the Store Assistant, Construction Sub Division, Panna for subsequent withdrawal of materials from the Area Store. One Shri R.S. Mehta was appointed as enquiry officer who was the retired chief Engineer of the Board and he conducted the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence, on 13-6-1987 found all the charges to be proved by giving specific finding that the petitioner failed to maintain register of major materials in his own handwriting. The petitioner while working as Asstt. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence, on 13-6-1987 found all the charges to be proved by giving specific finding that the petitioner failed to maintain register of major materials in his own handwriting. The petitioner while working as Asstt. Engineer, CSD Panna pre-signed blank indents and was keeping with Store Assistant which were pre-signed by the petitioner while he was incharge of the ACSR; the enquiry officer further found that the petitioner unauthorizedly got issued four conductor drums containing 0.02 sq. inch ACSR conductors from the Area Store, Chhattarpur on 29-10-1985 when he was not holding charge of AE, CSD, Panna out of which he misappropriated two conductor drums containing a total of 20.962 kms ACSR conductors. The enquiry officer forwarded the entire record of departmental enquiry to the disciplinary authority i.e. Secretary of the Board who by his second show cause notice dated 26-11-1987 while agreeing with the conclusions of the enquiry officer, sought reply from the petitioner. Second show cause notice was served to petitioner on 9-12-1987. The petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure A/95 dated 28-12-1987. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 28-3-1988 after considering the entire material placed before it including the reply of second show cause notice found all the charges of major misconducts to be proved and eventually passed order of punishment of removal from service against the petitioner on 28-3-1988 (Annexure A/96) This order was passed by the Secretary of the Board. 5-6. It is said that petitioner submitted three review petitions dated 30-4-1988, 8-7-1988 and 15-7-1988. A copy of the review petition dated 15-7-1988 has been placed on record as Annexure A/97. The disciplinary authority/secretary of the Board vide its order dated 26-7-1989 rejected all the three review petitions. It has been contended by the petitioner in his petition that he submitted a mercy appeal on 28-7-1989 before the Board followed by reminder dated 5-8-1989. The Board after considering the mercy appeal passed the order giving fresh appointment to the petitioner on 16-8-1989 on the post of Assistant Engineer (R.E.) to the office of C.E. (R.E.) MPEB, Jabalpur. The copy of fresh appointment letter dated 16-8-1989 has been placed on record as Annexure A/99. I have heard Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Board after considering the mercy appeal passed the order giving fresh appointment to the petitioner on 16-8-1989 on the post of Assistant Engineer (R.E.) to the office of C.E. (R.E.) MPEB, Jabalpur. The copy of fresh appointment letter dated 16-8-1989 has been placed on record as Annexure A/99. I have heard Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by him that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law; the disciplinary authority passed a general order agreeing with the views of enquiry officer without considering the case of petitioner; and the review petitions have been dismissed without application of mind. In the present case, though return has been filed, but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. One very important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that the petitioner himself submitted an application on 9-5-1989 (Annexure R/15) after he was removed from his service, praying therein and clarifying that he be appointed fresh on the basis of any condition that Board may like to levy. In the application it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner that any terms and conditions that may be offered to him by the Board, shall be accepted by him. The respondents, accepting specific request of the petitioner made by him in Annexure R/15 and by taking sympathetic view against him appointed him, by providing him a fresh appointment order on the post of Assistant Engineer on 16-8-1989 (Annexure A/99). Indeed, the petitioner totally suppressed this fact that on his request to provide him fresh appointment by adopting lenient view, fresh appointment order Annexure A/99 was issued to him. In all fairness he should have mentioned this fact in his petition. It be seen that the petitioner kept mum until he was given fresh appointment and he did not file any petition assailing the order of his removal from his service and after having obtained the fresh appointment order, he knocked the door of this Court by filing the present petition. This attitude of petitioner appears to be mala fide. Since the petitioner himself applied for fresh appointment on any of the terms and conditions, in my opinion, for this reason, no case for interference is made out. This attitude of petitioner appears to be mala fide. Since the petitioner himself applied for fresh appointment on any of the terms and conditions, in my opinion, for this reason, no case for interference is made out. On going through the enquiry report (A-62), it is gathered that the enquiry officer, after considering the evidence and entire material placed before it, as well as by dealing the contentions raised by the petitioner found all the charges to be proved. I have also gone through the findings rendered by the enquiry officer and I find it to be in quite detail dealing with each and every point. The conclusion is based on evidence and the material placed on record and after dealing with the submissions of the petitioner. If on going through the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority after careful consideration of it comes to the conclusion that the charges are proved, in my opinion, it was necessary for it to re-assess and to re-write the details and then to hold that the charges are proved. Since there is sufficient material on record that the charges are proved and the disciplinary authority after x-raying the findings of the enquiry officer, found that the charges are proved. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the disciplinary authority holding the charges to be proved. After issuing second show-cause notice (Annexure A/94) dated 26-11-1987 and on being submitted by its reply (Annexure A/95) dated 24-12-1987 by the petitioner, the order of removal from services was passed on 28-3-1988, which was followed by the rejection of review petition dated 15-7-1988. Normally, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of the charges proved, past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness, expected and discipline required to be maintained and the department/establishment in which the delinquent concerned works [See Director General R.P.F. and Others Vs. Ch. Sai Babu, The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, . Ch. Sai Babu, The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar, . In the present case, on going through the charges specially charge No. 3 and 4 and the finding of the enquiry officer in that regard which is based on evidence and material placed before it, it transpires that the petitioner unauthorisedly got issued four drums of 0.02 sq. inch ACSR conductor from the area store Chhattarpur on 29-10-1985 when he was not holding the charge of A.E., CSD, Panna, and out of which, he misappropriated two conductor drums containing a total of 20.962 kms ACSR conductor. According to me, the misconduct committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature which resulted into a heavy financial loss to the Board and, therefore, according to me, when the scope of interfering the quantum of punishment is very limited, it is difficult to interfere in the punishment order. Apart from it, the petitioner assailed the order after the lapse of four years without assigning any reason and for this additional reason also, I am declined to interfere in the quantum of punishment. In the result, the petition is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The security amount, if deposited, may be refunded to the petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed