Honble YADAV, J. – Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking reliefs to quash the orders dated 6.2.89 Annex. 3, dated 17.4.89, Annex. 5 and dated 28.11.90, Annex. 7 and in the alternative a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release two grade increments of the petitioner which were unnecessarily with held by them on the ground of pendency of departmental inquiry against him. (2). Brief facts leading upto filing of the present writ petition are that in contemplation of a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.6.88, a photo stat copy of which is filed along with writ petition and marked as Annexure 1. (3). After suspension the petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide memorandum dated 27.9.88. A Photostat copy of the charge sheet dated 27.9.88 is also filed and marked as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. (4). After service of charge sheet, the Management vide letter dated 29.9.88 appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges before whom the petitioner denied the charges and thereafter the Management was called upon to lead its evidence to prove the charges. (5). On behalf of the Management in all 118 documents were tendered in evidence. The petitioner in his defence also tendered in all 91 documents which were exhibited during the course of the inquiry. (6). On the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioner and the management the inquiry officer submitted his report after recording finding to the effect that Charge No. 1 to 3 are proved while charge No. 4 was not found to be proved. (7). After receipt of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 6.10.89 Annexure 3 to the writ petition awarded the following punishment on the petitioner– (a) Basic pay of the petitioner was reduced by 5 stages from Rs. 2825/- per month to Rs. 2325/- per month in officers scale IInd with permanent and immediate effect. (b) Suspension of the petitioner ordered vide charge-sheet dated 27th September 1988 was revoked with immediate effect. (c) The petitioner held not to be entitled to be paid any salary or allowance for a period of his suspension except for subsistence allowance already paid to him. (8). 2325/- per month in officers scale IInd with permanent and immediate effect. (b) Suspension of the petitioner ordered vide charge-sheet dated 27th September 1988 was revoked with immediate effect. (c) The petitioner held not to be entitled to be paid any salary or allowance for a period of his suspension except for subsistence allowance already paid to him. (8). Aggrieved against the aforesaid punishment awarded by disciplinary aut- hority on 6.10.89, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman, appellate authority, who after taking into account all the relevant materials on record modified the punishment awarded by disciplinary authority by reducing the basic pay of the petitioner from 5 stages to 2 stages from Rs. 2825/- to Rs. 2625/- with cumulative effect, in officers scale IInd. Vide his order dated 17.4.90 Annexure 5 to the writ pe- tition. (9). It appears from the record that the petitioner, for redressal of his grievances, moved a review petition before the Chairman which was returned to him vide letter dated 28.11.90 Annexure 7 to the writ petition. (10). After service of notice a joint return was filed on behalf of respondents taking a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. is not an instrumentality of the State, therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (11). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner has already retired from his service of Bank after attaining the age of superannuation. (12). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment awarded by appellate authority is not proportionate to the guilt found by disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. It is urged before me that the appellate authority in stead of reducing and modifying the punishment awarded by disciplinary authority ought to have set aside the order of punishment in toto. Suffice it to say in this regard that nothing has been brought to my notice that the order, reducing and modifying the punishment by appellate authority, was not within his jurisdiction or otherwise illegal. Order of punishment imposed against delinquent officer cannot be set aside by this court on the ground that in the opinion of this court, it is harsh, unjust, oppressive or inproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. Order of punishment imposed against delinquent officer cannot be set aside by this court on the ground that in the opinion of this court, it is harsh, unjust, oppressive or inproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. In such a situation, this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot afford to go behind the punishment, holding that it is not proportionate to the guilt of the petitioner unless it is alleged and proved that power of punishment has not been exercised in bonafide manner. In the present case, neither it is alleged nor it is proved that the order, reducing and modifying punishment by the appellate authority is in excess of its jurisdiction or malafide, therefore, I decline to interfere with the order of punishment awarded by appellate authority. (13). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 8.6.88 and the inquiry remained pen- ding for about two years and in between, two annual grade increments became due to him, but on account of pendency of the inquiry, the same were also with-held. (14). I am not impressed with the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that withholding of two increments to the peti- tioner during the pendency of disciplinary inquiry are not shown to me to be in violation of service rules, applicable to him. In such a situation, it is not permissible for the petitioner to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge, withholding of his two increments, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him. (15). It is apparent on the face of record that against the petitioner, grave charges of financial irregularities are alleged and proved by Bank-respondent after giving opportunity of hearing to him. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case. I refrain to make the order of punishment passed against the petitioner to be in effective. (16). In view of what has been discussed above, I do not consider it just and proper to enter into pure academic question raised in reply of the respondent to the effect that Bank of Raj. Ltd. is not an instrumentality of State. This question is left open to be decided in a appropriate case. (17). (16). In view of what has been discussed above, I do not consider it just and proper to enter into pure academic question raised in reply of the respondent to the effect that Bank of Raj. Ltd. is not an instrumentality of State. This question is left open to be decided in a appropriate case. (17). No other point for consideration before me were urged except the points discussed above. (18). As a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merits, and it is hereby dismissed. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.