JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. An order of punishment affirmed by the appellate authority is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the disciplinary proceeding is a product of mala fides. He submits that, the petitioner made complaints with regard to certain ill workings at a branch to the authorities. As a counterblast to such complaints, the authorities embarked upon the disciplinary proceedings. He draws the attention of the Court to the litigation initiated by the petitioner. He submits that, since the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides, the same should be quashed. Referring to the disciplinary proceedings itself, he submits that, the changes were not proved. The petitioner was not allowed to take inspection of certain documents, although asked for. The appellate authority did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, on the ground of the breach of principles of natural justice, the order of the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority stands vitiated. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to a writing dated September 10, 2012 and submits that, although, a punishment of withholding of three increments have been passed, the authorities have refused to grant or disburse further increments. According to him, the petitioner is now being punished without an order of punishment being in place so far as withholding of further increments are concerned. 4. L.I.C. authorities are represented. 5. Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record. 6. A writ Court is not to convert itself as an appellate authority in respect of any decision taken by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority. The writ Court is not required to re-apprise the evidence and substitute its own finding with that arrive at by the disciplinary authority. 7. In the facts of the present case, there were few charges made against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceeding. The parties led their evidence. The same was considered. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment by withholding of three increments on the finding that, the charges against the petitioner stands proved. The petitioner preferred an appeal therefrom. In the appeal, the petitioner was not given an oral hearing. However, the order of the appellate authority records the individual contentions of the petitioner in the appeal and deals with them in extensio. The petitioner preferred an appeal therefrom. In the appeal, the petitioner was not given an oral hearing. However, the order of the appellate authority records the individual contentions of the petitioner in the appeal and deals with them in extensio. Both the orders of the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate authority are well reasoned. Principle of natural justice does not require that, at every stage a delinquent is required to be given an oral hearing. What it requires is that, the delinquent must be afford a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. In the present case, the petitioner was heard by the disciplinary authority in person. The appellate authority did not afford an opportunity of oral hearing. However, as noted above, the appellate authority proceeded to deal with each and every contention of the petitioner in details. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that, inspection of a vital document was not given to the petitioner. Such ground of appeal has been discussed in details by the appellate authority. There is no ground for the writ Court to substitute its finding with that arrived at by the appellate authority on such score. So far as the mala fides are concerned, I am not convinced that, the disciplinary proceeding is a product of the same. True, the petitioner ventilated certain grievances before the authorities and dragged the authorities to the High Court. It does not mean that, the authorities are denuded of their powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings when they find that, the person concerned is guilty of insubordination or guilty of any conduct which requires a disciplinary proceeding. In the present case, charges were framed against the petitioner and the same stand proved. 8. So far as withholding of increments are concerned, it appears from the records that, by a writing dated September 10, 2012, L.I.C. authorities informed the petitioner, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 that, a further increments stand withheld in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. With respect, the authorities are not entitled to withhold increments beyond the extent of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. If the petitioner is entitled to further increment after the award of such punishment, the authorities must disburse the same, in accordance with law. With respect, the authorities are not entitled to withhold increments beyond the extent of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. If the petitioner is entitled to further increment after the award of such punishment, the authorities must disburse the same, in accordance with law. The authorities will do so preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is clarified that, the authorities will pay all entitlements of the petitioner in accordance with law, subject to the order of punishment as imposed. 9. W.P. No.30599 (W) of 2013 is disposed of accordingly. 10. No order as to costs. 11. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.