IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.657 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary – cum-Commissioner, then Rural Engineering Organization, Now Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Deputy Secretary, then Rural Engineering Organization, Now Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Executive Engineer, Vigilance Pramandal -1, then Rural Engineering Organization, Now Rural Works Department, Patna 4. Superintending Engineer, then Rural Engineering Organization, Now Rural Works Department, Patna 5. Executive Engineer, then Rural Engineering Organization, Now Rural Works Department, Masaurhi, District Patna .......Appellants Versus PRAMOD KUMAR, son of Sri Deo Kumar Lal, resident of Mohalla – New Colony, Dharhara, PO Arrah Town, District Bhojpur ........ Respondent ----------- 04- 4/4/2011 No one appears for appellants. The instant letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 25.1.2010 passed in CWJC No.16752 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner is entitled to 50 per cent of the arrears of wages and would receive his current salary and he would be deemed to have continued in service for pensionary and other purposes. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that it would be the duty of the respondents to administratively proceed against the concerned controlling officer indicted in the enquiry report dated 1.7.2009, including recovery of the 50% wages would 2 be paid to the petitioner from the wages of the delinquent officer. The appellants have raised a grievance that without affording an opportunity to file counter affidavit, the writ application was disposed of indicting appellants on the pleadings of the petitioner raised in the writ petition. 2. We are of the considered view that no positive direction could be issued in the circumstances of the case where no opportunity was afforded to the respondent authorities to file its counter affidavit. Opportunity of filing counter affidavit is all the more imperative if the order indicts and finds the respondent concerned guilty for his grave act of omissions and commissions. The learned single Judge has directed recovery of sum equal to 50% of back wages to be paid to the writ petitioner from one of the respondents. In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned single Judge to decide the matter afresh. 3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl 3