ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing letter/Memo dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) and Memo dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) and respondents may kindly be directed to recover the amount from the pension of the petitioner or by way of other mode. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner and pension without any delay and in case any delay caused to release or pay the pension, the defaulting official/officer may kindly be dealt with in accordance with law.” 3. Petitioner is a government servant and is due to retire on 30th April, 2022. In 2009, petitioner stood guarantee for one Satya Prakash in respect of repayment of his loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.3-bank. Satya Prakash retired in the year 2014 and the loan obtained by Satya Prakash remained unpaid. 4. Respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 10.3.2022 made request to respondent No.4 to recover the unpaid loan amount of Satya Prakash from the retiral and terminal benefits payable to petitioner on retirement in execution of loan case No.6/ 2017. In sequel, petitioner received a communication dated 14.3.2022 from respondent No. 4 seeking his reply. Though, petitioner submitted his reply, but nothing further has been heard from respondent No.4 and, therefore, the petitioner apprehends the recovery of aforesaid loan amount from his retiral benefits. 5. Petitioner has approached this Court on the grounds that the principal borrower, Satya Prakash, retired in the year 2014 and no recovery was effected from his retiral benefits. He was also drawing monthly pension of Rs.35,000/-, but respondent No.3-bank, without recovering its dues from principal borrower is wrongly and illegally trying to recover the same from petitioner. It has been stressed upon that the creditor i.e. respondent No.3- bank is duty bound to recover the amount from principal borrower as per law. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against principal borrower and thus the recovery now sought to be made amounts to double jeopardy. 6. Petitioner has not denied that he had sought guarantee for principal borrower Satya Prakash. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against principal borrower and thus the recovery now sought to be made amounts to double jeopardy. 6. Petitioner has not denied that he had sought guarantee for principal borrower Satya Prakash. There is no assertion that the impugned action of respondents is in violation of the terms of the guarantee. Petitioner has not laid any challenge to the process initiated by respondent No.2 for recovery of loan amount. 7. The predominant challenge of the petitioner is on account of petitioner being chosen for the recovery by respondent No.3 in preference to the principal borrower, which in our considered view, deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the plea raised by petitioner is against law. The liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. As per section 137 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, petitioner has no right to evade his liability under contract of guarantee by simply pleading forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal borrower in the first instance. 9. The contention of the petitioner that he will be put to double jeopardy also deserves to be rejected with equal force. The proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act are not against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the said proceedings are not the substitute for recovery but are in the realm of penal proceedings filed against a person, whose cheque remains unpaid on presentation. 10. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in this petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.