Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. Nos, 312 and 313 of 2004 cited compositeiy by the Bench of Tribunal on 1st March, 2005, whereby Original Applications came to be allowed and the termination of the applicants who are respondents in these two petitions was declared arbitrary, unjustified and not legal, with costs, is under challenge in these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A few skeleton projection of factual profile relevant to the point in issue may be highlighted. Since both the writ petitions have common questions and also have arisen out of a common order of the Tribunal, they are heard together and now being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The respondents, who were applicants before the Tribunal, challenged the termination of the appointment order before the Tribunal, inter alia, contending that the impugned order of termination of all the original applicants was unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and not supportable by law. Upon hearing the parties advocates and considering the facts on record, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the applications quashing the termination of service on the premise that the said action was arbitrary, unjustified and not according to law. Hence, two petitions at the instance of the Union of India and other officers of the Union of India. 5. It will be also interesting to highlight here at this juncture that the original applicants came to be appointed in the year 1997 and they continued to work. Upon first termination earlier the applicants had also approached the Tribunal questioning the termination as illegal by filing O.A. Nos. 97, 98 and 420 of 1997 in which the Tribunal decided against the authority and in favour of the applicants. It was, inter alia, found by the Tribunal in its order in earlier those applications dated 15.3.2001 that the impugned action of removal or disengagement of the original applicants from the post without giving any show cause notice as well as without observing the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. It was, inter alia, found by the Tribunal in its order in earlier those applications dated 15.3.2001 that the impugned action of removal or disengagement of the original applicants from the post without giving any show cause notice as well as without observing the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order of termination in those group of matters came to be quashed by the Tribunal on 15th March, 2001 and also observing that the petitioners herein, respondents in those proceedings, were at liberty to take appropriate actions against the original applicants in accordance with law including giving show cause notice. 6. In this background let us revert to the impugned composite order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is examined dispassionately by us. We have also given threadbare hearing of the counsel. It would be expedient to refer the observations of the Tribunal made in para 8 of the impugned common order of the Tribunal which would vent the entire factual matrix and relevant aspects which reads here as under: "8. The analysis of the entire case appears to be not only baffling but intriguing to say the least. Respondents have apparently not taken any action against Sri C.P. Singh who is said to have made appointment in an irregular manner in the first place, nor any action has been taken against the then Superintendent, RMS U Division, Muzaffarpur, for passing the order at Annexure-A/6 and giving clean chit to the applicants. The entire case, therefore, looks as if there is no application of mind at any level and only personal fiat and whim is at work in both appointments and termination of appointments. Respondent no. 4 has, in fact, passed order at Annexure- A/7 in the name of direction of CAT, Patna Bench, which itself borders on a contempt of this Court. Respondents had indeed been given liberty by this Court in its order dated 15.3.2001 in OA 97/97, OA 98/97 and O.A. 420/97 to take appropriate action against the applicants in accordance with law. However, this exercise had already been completed and a speaking order had been passed at Annexure-A/6 by the concerned respondent. At Annexure-A/7, the new Superintendent, RMS U Division, Muzaffarpur, has created an impression as if the case of appointment of the applicants was reviewed as per direction of CAT, Patna Bench. However, this exercise had already been completed and a speaking order had been passed at Annexure-A/6 by the concerned respondent. At Annexure-A/7, the new Superintendent, RMS U Division, Muzaffarpur, has created an impression as if the case of appointment of the applicants was reviewed as per direction of CAT, Patna Bench. This was indeed not the case, we would therefore urge upon the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna to look into the whole case and take appropriate action against the guilty persons. It is, however, quite ciear that the termination of appointment of the applicants is absolutely arbitrary and unjustified, whether they have completed 7 years of service or otherwise. We have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing and setting aside Annexure-A/7 in both the OAs and Annexure-A/8 in O.A. 312/2004 and Anenxure-A/9 in O.A. 313/2004." 7. As observed hereinbefore, the Tribunal has in clear terms found that the termination of service of the original applicants is legally unsupportable as it is tainted with arbitrariness and unreasonableness. 8. The earlier termination order after having been found not in accordance with law, may also be mentioned and that respondent no. 4 the concerned Superintendent had issued again a show cause notice, replies were filed and upon consideration and hearing reached to a conclusion that the alleged illegal appointments of the original applicants cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, successor of the Superintendent in office reviewed it and again passed order of termination of service of the original applicants which also came to be questioned before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that the appointments cannot be said to be illegal. Of course, attention of this Court is drawn to the observations that the successor in office who passed at the relevant time the second review order was directed to pay cost personally of an amount of Rs. 1000/- each to all the nine original applicants. 9. After having taken into consideration the overall picture emerged with the factual profile as well as record and the settled proposition of law and the factum the original applicants having been continued in service for long it cannot be contended that the impugned composite order of the Tribunal is in any way not supportable or not permissible. In our opinion, the views in support of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal are quite justified requiring no interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. In our opinion, the views in support of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal are quite justified requiring no interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. 10. While parting, we are sorry to say that for such petty cases the avoidable challenge in this Court is rigorously pursued by the respondent authorities which can never be appreciated. Thus, in this context we direct to pay cost of Rs. 1000/- to each of the original applicants while dismissing both the writ applications. Accordingly, both the writ applications shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission itself with cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the respondents authorities to each of the original applicants.