¶1This proceeding presents the same problem as that disposed of in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273 [5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], and Sauer v. McCarthy, ante, p. 295 [5 Cal.Rptr. 682, 353 P.2d 290], decided this day, and those decisions are controlling here.
¶2The alternative writ of mandate is discharged, and a peremptory writ is denied.
¶3This case involves the same problem as that involved in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273, decided this date. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in that case, ante, p. 287 [5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], it is my opinion that the writ of mandate should issue ordering the director to set aside petitioner’s order of suspension and to grant him the hearing provided by law.
¶4Without suggesting accord with the views of the majority in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273 [5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], in other respects, I dissent because I am of the opinion that petitioner has been denied the hearing to which he is entitled by law.
¶5McComb, J., concurred.