Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 29. 2004, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 30.04.2004 removing the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation and for a direction to reinstate him with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The brief as could be seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows: (a) Petitioner joined in the service of the respondents as Home Guard on 23.04.1991 and he participated in the state level meets held at Madurai on 212. 1991; at Tirunelveli in the year 1993; at Chennai in the year 1994; at Coimbatore in the year 1995; and at Salem in the year 1996 and he won several prizes. According to the petitioner, he has also participated in the national level meets in the year 1996 held at Pune and in the meet held at Haryana in the year 2000 and won Gold medal. (b) In the year 1998, promotion test was conducted, pursuant to which the petitioner got the rank of ASL. From 20.09.2003 to 10. 2003, training was conducted and two persons, who attended the training for one week viz., P. Saravanan and Mathivannan were selected for promotion. (c ) According to the petitioner, he never absented from duty and he was expecting to get promotion for the post of Assistant Commander, for which test was conducted as stated supra on 11. 2003 and written test on 11. 2003. The petitioner was not given promotion while his juniors were given promotion. (d) As the petitioner was not promoted, he sent a telegram on 12. 2003 to the Area Commander with regard to his overlooking of promotion and marked copy to the Area Commander General, Home Guard, Tiruppur; Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri; Additional Director General of Police; and to the Director General of Police. (e) As the petitioner sent representation directly as stated above, he was issued with a show cause notice, for which he submitted explanation and after conducing enquiry, it was held that the petitioner’s indiscipline was proved and he had violated Rule 12(1) of the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Rules and Regulations, 1963, and consequently he was removed from service by the second respondent by order dated 30.04.2004. (f) The petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent, which was also rejected on 29. (f) The petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent, which was also rejected on 29. 2004 against which this writ petition is filed contending that the procedure contemplated under Rule 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Rules and Regulations, 1963, has not been followed, which states that an orderly room must consist of a Divisional Commander and Company Commander and their findings and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Area Commander, who shall decide all further action to be taken in the matter. It is further contended that the complaint alleged by the petitioner being against the Company Commander, the very same Officer recommended the petitioner’s removal from service and under the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Rules and Regulations, 1963, there is no procedure for giving complaint against any officers and therefore there is no violation of any rule. As per Rule 12(3) and (4) when the Home Guard fails to perform duties and responsibilities, the same can be treated as indiscipline and the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service is illegal. 3. The Second respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that promotion test was conducted in proper manner and marks were awarded based on performance to all the participants by following the norms. The allegation levelled by the petitioner are baseless and incorrect and the members of the Home Guard are expected to work in an orderly and disciplined manner and the petitioner violated Rule 12(3) & (4) of the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Rules and Regulations, 1963. The petitioner was directed to appear before the orderly room and based on the findings of the orderly room and the recommendations of the third respondent, the Second respondent issued an order and there is no illegality. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that sending false petitioner against superiors directly to the other authority, without routing the same through proper channel is an in disciplined action on the part of the petitioner and therefore the Department proceed against the petitioner and there is no illegality in the said order. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that sending false petitioner against superiors directly to the other authority, without routing the same through proper channel is an in disciplined action on the part of the petitioner and therefore the Department proceed against the petitioner and there is no illegality in the said order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no rule prohibiting sending of grievance petition to the higher officials directly under the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Rules and Regulations, 1963, and the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, is not applicable to the petitioner, who is in the Home Guard service and therefore charge framed against the petitioner itself is baseless and the order of removal from service is too harsh in any event and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioner being in the Disciplined Force, is bound to maintain the disciplined by not accusing the higher officials event though there is no specific circular or rule, prohibiting communication of grievance directly to the higher officials, and to maintain the discipline, strict view was taken by the respondents and the petitioner was removed from service. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. The alleged violation made by the “petitioner is with regard to submitting of grievance directly to the higher officials of the Department as to his non-promotion and not routing his grievance through the proper channel. The discipline to be maintained by the Home Guard is mentioned in Rule 12, which reads as follows: “12. Discipline: .(1) A member of the Home Guard shall perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him and shall obey every order of his superior officers. .(2) If a contingent of Home Guard is acting in conjunction with the police, they shall be subject to the control of the senior police officer present. Discipline: .(1) A member of the Home Guard shall perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him and shall obey every order of his superior officers. .(2) If a contingent of Home Guard is acting in conjunction with the police, they shall be subject to the control of the senior police officer present. .(3) The Commissioner of Police in the City of Madras or the Superintendent of Police in a district may for good and sufficient reason, impose on any member of the Home Guard any of the following penalties, namely:- .(a) Suspension .(b) Removal .(4) All Cases of indiscipline shall be brought before an Orderly Room consisting of the Adjutant, a Divisional Commander and a Company Commander, Charges framed and the Home Guard charged shall be given an opportunity to explain in the charge against him. The findings of the orderly room and its recommendation shall be forwarded to the Area Commander who shall decided what further action is to be taken in the matter.” A perusal of the above rule shows, nowhere in the rule it is stated that any grievance of the Home Guard personnel should be routed through proper channel. It is case of the petitioner as well as the Government Advocate that the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973, which prohibits sending of grievance directly to the higher officials is not applicable to the case on hand. 8. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that there is no specific circular or rule, which is made applicable to the Home Guard servants, not to communicate the grievances directly to the higher officials, but to send the same only through proper channel. In the absence of any such prohibition or code of conduct to be followed by the Home Guard Servants, the action of the petitioner i.e., sending the grievance directly to the higher officials, cannot be treated as major misconduct. The petitioner has specifically raised this point in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and also before the appellate authority. The same was not considered by the appellate authority while passing orders in the appeal. Even assuming that the petitioner’s conduct of sending his grievance to the higher officials directly is an indiscipline, it could be treated only as a minor misconduct. The same was not considered by the appellate authority while passing orders in the appeal. Even assuming that the petitioner’s conduct of sending his grievance to the higher officials directly is an indiscipline, it could be treated only as a minor misconduct. The petitioner having not been inflicted with any other punishment in his whole service in the Home Guard duty from 1991 till 2004, the appellate authority should have considered whether the punishment imposed was proper or excessive, having regard to the facts of the case. 9. In the light of the above findings, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the manner is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the above aspect in the light of the above findings and the rule applicable to the petitioner, and pass fresh orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.