Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals are based on common facts and law, and, accordingly, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. Delay in filing L.P.A. No. 1254 of 2004 is condoned. 4. Both these appeals are directed against orders dated 4.8.2004 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 12472 of 2001 and 7245 of 2003, respectively. 5. C.W.J.C. No. 12472 of 2001 was allowed on merit, whereas C.W.J.C. No. 7245 of 2003 was allowed in terms of order passed in the former writ application, as referred to above. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge has not decided the issue involved in correct perspective of the case. It is further contended that the action of the appellants in passing the order in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules") is very much in consonance with the provisions and well within jurisdiction, as necessary formalities were completed by giving show cause notice to the respondents. 7. The learned single Judge of this Court on appreciation of the facts and submissions of the respective parties held that the actions of the appellants are bad, illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, as requirements of law were not followed, inasmuch as the authorities, at no point of time, had found the services of the writ petitioners unsatisfactory during their service tenure nor there was prior adjudication about their misconduct. The learned single Judge, therefore, held that the actions of the authorities in terms of Rule 139 of the Rules are not sustainable. 8. Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh and Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the action of the authorities in terms of Rule 139 was wholly misconceived and without jurisdiction, as services of the respondents were not found to be unsatisfactory. 9. We have carefully gone through the orders impugned, and the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge, which in our considered view, do not warrant any interference, as the same are based on sound reasons in consonance with the legal propositions, as propounded from time to time by the Apex Court and this Court. 10. These appeals, accordingly, do not merit consideration. 11. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed.