But for the order of retirement which was served on him he might have companytinued in service up to December 31, 1971 when he would have attained the age of 55 years.
In the companynter affidavit of the State it was averred that action was taken by the Government on a companysideration of the companyfidential reports submitted in respect of the petitioner and that it was number based on any prejudice or jealousy against him.
1835 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 21,1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
The averments in the petition which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows Paragraph 5 of the petition This order which vitally affects my right to companytinue till I attain the age of superannuation, namely, 55 years with the prospect of becoming the Head of the Department should have been passed only after giving me an opportunity to show cause against it having regard to the rules of natural justice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
While companymunicating an adverse remark, the name of the officer recording the adverse remark shall number be companymunicated to the officer reported upon.
Appellant appeared in person.
2371 of 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The only point involved in this appeal by certi ficate, is whether the order of companypulsory retirement dated June 28, 1967 intimating the appellant that it was necessary in the public interest that he should be retired from service with effect from October 15, 1967 in terms of Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules read with Note I thereto was inconsistent with the rules of natural justice in that the appellant was number informed of the evidence on which the order was based and numberopportunity was given to him of being heard and meeting or explaining away the evidence in support of the order, and as such was liable to be quashed.
Veerappa, for the respondents.
