P P YAJURVEDI Vs. C L HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question on which the present writ petition can be disposed of (no other point taken by the petitioner arises for consideration in the view I take) is whether the petitioner, who was working as Extra Assistant Director in the Central Water and Power Commission, and completed 55 years of age on 18-4-67, was validly retired by the issue of the impugned notice' (Annexure-I), dated 17-10-66 which reads as under:

(2.) He was not given any show cause notice prior to the issue of Annexure I. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rules of natural .justice were violated since it was admittedly passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity to show cause against the same.

(3.) A similar question arose for decision before a Division Bench of this High Court (consisting of Hardayal Hardy and T. V. R. Tatachari, JJ.) in J. N. Sinha v. Union of India through Secy. Minister of Education and Youth . Services, New Delhi reported in 1970 Ser LR 213 (Delhi). Tatachari, J., who spoke for the Bench observed: