Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 12.08.2011, made in O.A.No.807 of 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the original application, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dismissing him from service passed by the second respondent dated 15.06.2009 and the order, dated 11/24.02.2010 passed by the first respondent in confirming the said order, was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who initially joined the second respondent Division on 01.06.1989 as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Athipadi Branch Office, that while he was working as Branch Post Master, Kuttar Village, the second respondent issued a charge sheet dated 11.10.2007 to him containing two articles of charges. According to the petitioner, the first charge was that while he was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Kuttar Branch Office, he remained absent from duty from 04.08.2006 to 07.08.2006 and from 10.01.2007 to 03.07.2007 without getting prior permission from the Inspector of Posts, Chengam Sub Division and the second charge was that while he was working in the aforesaid office, he failed to deliver the RL 1212 dated 06.06.2006 of Thiruvannamalai Head Office received at Kuttar Branch Office on 07.06.2006 and detained the RL without delivering till 08.08.2006 and he also failed to deliver the RL 702 dated 13.07.2006 of Thiruvannamalai Head Office received at Kuttar Branch Office on 14.07.2006 and detained the RL without delivering till 08.08.2006. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that based on the aforesaid charges, an enquiry was held in which the charges leveled against him have been proved and the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the petitioner, who submitted a representation, dated 23.05.2009, and based on the report of the Enquiry Officer and the representation of the petitioner, the second respondent has passed an order, dated 15.06.2009, removing him from service with immediate effect and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has also been rejected by the first respondent, vide order dated 11/24.02.2010. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.807 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.807 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by confirming the orders passed by the second and the first respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. It is seen from the perusal of the records that apart from the other contentions, the main contention raised by the petitioner in the original application, as considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment, is with regard to the power and competence of a person/officer, viz., the Disciplinary Authority, who has been promoted on ad-hoc basis. 7. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that through proceedings dated 16.04.2009, so many number of conditions were enumerated for promoting Mr. V. Thangavelu, who is the Disciplinary Authority, to the post of Superintendent of Post Offices on ad-hoc basis, which read as follows:- (a) The posting is for a period exceeding 180 days but less than one year or till alternate/regular arrangement is made whichever is earlier. This arrangement is also liable for termination at any time without notice. (b) The officiating appointment ordered above is purely on temporary basis and until further orders and will not bestow upon him any claim for regular appointment in the cadre. Officiating services so rendered will not count for the purpose of seniority in the grade, for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. (c) In case any Vigilance/Disciplinary case of the type referred to in the OM No.22022/4/91-Estt (A) (dated 14.09.1992 from the Department of Personnel & Training, circulated vide D.G. (Posts), New Delhi 110 001 Memo No.25/19/88-SPG dt 13.10.1992 is pending against the official, he should not be relieved for posting. If any punishment is current against him, he should not be promoted before expiry of currency of punishment and a report in this regard should be submitted immediately. (d) This arrangement will be terminated at any time without notice. On termination of this arrangement, the officer will be reverted to ASP (Group-B cadre). If any punishment is current against him, he should not be promoted before expiry of currency of punishment and a report in this regard should be submitted immediately. (d) This arrangement will be terminated at any time without notice. On termination of this arrangement, the officer will be reverted to ASP (Group-B cadre). He cannot claim for the same post last held by him in the ASP (Group B cadre). 8. A perusal of the aforesaid conditions makes it abundantly clear that in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority is not holding any permanent post and he has not given any powers to initiate and pass disciplinary proceedings and imposing punishment. 9. After going through the entire materials placed on record, more so, after perusing the order of ad-hoc promotion of the said V. Thangavelu, and also Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has gone wrong in considering the contention raised by the petitioner. The order of imposing punishment against the petitioner is not passed by the competent authority as mentioned in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules. The Tribunal, before passing the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, has not gone into the order of ad-hoc promotion of the said Thangavelu. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasons adopted by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. 10. In view of the above, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.807 of 2010, dated 12.08.2011, is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.