JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 19th April, 1983 and 11th June, 1984. 2. The petitioner was working as Secretary of the Bikaner Divisional Unit of All India Postal Employees Union Class-Ill. In that capacity the petitioner issued Savingram to Sarvashri K.L. Moza General Secretary of the Union and S.K. Gosh Director General, P&T, New Delhi for ventilating certain grievances. He was informed by communication dated 22nd January, 1983 that the Department proposed to take action against him under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (here in after referred as the Rules of 1965) for directly sending Savingram. He was served with the statement of charge for this misbehaviour and he was given 10 days time to file reply to this the gravman of the charge was that he has sent a Savingram to the higher authorities in contravention of the instructions issued by the Directer General that certain nominated authorities should be contacted for redress or grievances as contained in Annexure-4. After enquiry the petitioner was found guilty for misconduct for violation of Rule 3(l)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which lays down that every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The petitioner was found guilty of this misconduct under the Conduct Rules and for violation of the instructions sent by Director General as contained in Annexure-4 for directly writing to the Director General Post and Telegraph for redress of the grievance as unbecoming of Government servant. He was punished by stoppage of withholding of his increments for a period of 2 years and 3 months. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 21st June, 1984, the petitioner preferred an appeal and on appeal the punishment was reduced to that of censure only. Aggrieved against this the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 19th April, 1983 and appellate order dated 21st June, 1984. 4. A reply has been filed by the respondent and they have traversed all the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Aggrieved against this the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 19th April, 1983 and appellate order dated 21st June, 1984. 4. A reply has been filed by the respondent and they have traversed all the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this punishment and he has submitted that sending of Savingram for redress of his grievance is not an unbecoming of Government servant so as to warrant punishment because there is no prohibition contained in the instructions contained in Annexure-4 that they cannot approach the higher authorities. Secondly he has submitted that it is not a misconduct as defined in the Rules of 1964. Thirdly he submitted that it is not a correspondence and lastly he submits that Circular Annexure-4 is ultra vires of Article 19 (1)(c). 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it will be useful to reproduce the Savingram sent by the petitioner, which reads as under: "Director Postal Services Rajasthan Western Region Jodhpur supplied Cooking heaters instead of Room heaters in Bikaner Postal Division most unsuitable and useless AAA Hage unnecessary expenditure without relief. AAA December and January are coldest months in Bikaner AAA employees highly agitated AAA Pray immediate intervention to arrange suitable room heaters or revert to past procedure of supplying coal AAA Trade Union action, if suitable devices not arranged by 15th January." 6. The instructions circulated by the Director General of P & T reads as under: "11 Channel of Communication 2. The All India Union have their branches at Circle, Divisional and local levels. The Central Unions and their branches should correspond directly only with the P&T authorities incharge of the unit they represent i. e. a local Union authority, A Divisional Union with the Divisional Authority a Circle Union with the Head of the Circle and the Central Union with the D.G. or the Govt. through D.G. 7. A perusal of Circular dated 8th June, 1978 (Annexure-4) and Saving Ram sent by the Secretary of the All India Postal Employees Union Bikaner makes it clear that this is not unbecoming conduct of Government servant so as to warrant disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of 1965. through D.G. 7. A perusal of Circular dated 8th June, 1978 (Annexure-4) and Saving Ram sent by the Secretary of the All India Postal Employees Union Bikaner makes it clear that this is not unbecoming conduct of Government servant so as to warrant disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of 1965. The petitioner has only sent a telegram informing the Director General as well as Secretary General of the Union that in such severe months of cold at Bikaner cooking heaters have been provided instead of room heaters & they are not effective. It is not a case that any complaint has been filed against any individual breaking the channel of communication set up by the Director General. The Circular only says that they are not directly corresponding with the higher authorities and for that purpose a proper channel has been set up. It is true that the Union should first deal with the authorities at the appropriate level and if necessary then they should approach the higher authorities, but in the present case simply sending bonafide telegram to the Director General and the Secretary General of All India Postal Services Union would not amount to misconduct so as to warrant a regular departmental enquiry for punishment Had it been a case of repeated correspondence sent to the higher authorities ignoring the channel set up by the Director General it could have been understandable but sending Savingram waranting immediate action because of severe cold inviting attention of the higher authorities would not by any stretch of imagination fall in the definition of unbecoming conduct of Government servant. Since the first contention of Mr. Mridul is accepted, therefore I need not touch other aspects of the matter. 8. In the result 1 allow this writ petition and quash the orders dated 19th April, 1983 and 21st June, 1984. There is no order as to costs.Writ allowed. *******