IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9479 of 2008 PARAS RAM, S/O SRI BINDA RAM, R/O VILLAGE- MOTIPUR, P.O. AND P.S.-MOTIPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, (CHAIRMAN) RED CROSS SOCIETY, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. ADMINISTRATOR, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT BRANCH. 3. VICE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. MEDICAL OFFICER, MOTIPUR. 5. SECRETARY, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 02.08.2011 By order dated 20.07.2011 notices were ordered to be issued to respondent nos.2, 3 and 5. Requisites for which was filed within one week. On the mentioning slip of learned counsel for the petitioner filed on 27.07.2011 the matter was listed under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ yesterday. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondents had already appeared and had filed their joint counter affidavit through their learned counsel Sri Shashi Shekhar Prasad Sinha. Hence, notices were not required to be issued to the respondents. Since, the name of learned counsel was not appearing on the cause list the matter was adjourned for today with a 2 direction to the office to print the name of learned counsel in the column of counsel for the respondents. Today, Sri Sinha appears and submits that he has already appeared on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5. In the circumstances, the order dated 20.07.2011 is recalled. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of an order, communicated to him vide letter dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-1) of the Secretary Indian Red Cross Soceity, Muzaffarpur by which he was informed that the Society has terminated his services as Night Guard. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed after due selection as Night Guard pursuant to which he joined on 01.12.1998. The appointment letter, as contained in Annexure-4, shows that his appointment was contractual and subject to extension after two years if his services were found satisfactory. The order clearly mentioned that, if his service as Night Guard-cum-Peon was not found satisfactory his services could be terminated without 3 notice during the contractual period also. Before his joining he was required to execute an agreement to accept the said terms and conditions. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner’s services were terminated without giving him any notice or asking for show cause. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in the case. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner on affidavit had accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment. Further it is stated that petitioner’s services were not found satisfactory on many occasions on account of which after due show cause notice and warning also, his services were terminated. A letter of the Administrator of the Society dated 08.06.2006 is Annexure-F with the counter affidavit. This letter, addressed to the petitioner, shows that he was earlier issued show cause notice and his show cause reply received thereafter was not found satisfactory and he was given a warning to be careful in future. It appears that in spite of that 4 warning petitioner did not improve his conduct. Hence, his services were terminated. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the Society with the approval of the District Magistrate who is ex-officio Chairman of the Society. Since the appointment of the petitioner was on contract, subject to extension only on his satisfactory services, this Court does not find that the respondents have committed any error of law while terminating his services after finding that in spite of warning he had not improve his conduct. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)