JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathy. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalan Kr.Singh A.G to G.P.I learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the respondent no.5 whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated., 3. It appears that pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, Godda for the post of the Accountant on contractual post, the petitioner applied for the same and has been selected for the post of Block Accountant and posted at Pathargama Godda and subsequently, he was sent on deputation as Accountant-cum- computer operator at Headquarter Godda vide office order dated 26.1.2008 issued by the respondent no.5.It further appears that seeing the performance of the petitioner, he has been given additional charge of District Accountant-cum- Computer operator, Godda vide order dated 1.9.2010 issued by the respondent no.5.It also appears that respondent no. 5 appointed one Jagt Narayan Mandal for communication with Bank in coordination with Account Officer Godda for better and effective functioning in the department. It appears that said Jagat Narayan Mandol wrote letter to respondent no.5 for non transaction of some of the Banker's Cheque due to difference in name on Banker Cheque. The petitioner was asked to make reply on the complaint filed by one Santosh Kumar Singh for not sending the cheque (8) in time to the Bank by the Deputy Commissioner Godda vide letter dated 15.7.2013. It appears that respondent no.5 conducted an inquiry on the various allegation upon the petitioner and submitted his report to Deputy Commissioner, Godda wherein no charge was found true against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner gave systematic reply of the letter dated 15.7.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner Godda on the allegation levelled against him by one Santosh Kumar Singh vide letter dated 29.7.2013 within prescribed time. Respondent no.5 conducted an inquiry on the various allegation upon the petitioner and submitted his report to Deputy Commissioner, Godda wherein no charge was found true against the petitioner. It further appears that the respondent no. Respondent no.5 conducted an inquiry on the various allegation upon the petitioner and submitted his report to Deputy Commissioner, Godda wherein no charge was found true against the petitioner. It further appears that the respondent no. 5 without considering the matter properly took decision on the recommendation of respondent no.4 and remove the petitioner from service .It is stated that petitioner filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda against the order dated 7.8.2013 indicating the circumstances under which he has been penalized for the offence which he has not committed and requested for fresh consideration in his matter. It is stated that one Deepak kumar and Vijay Kumar are also working in the same department and the allegations are against them whereas the petitioner was not in picture anywhere. He also argued on the ground of enquiry report which is at page 24-26 of the writ petition. Enquiry report suggests that charge against the petitioner is not proved so far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned. So far as no-deposition of the cheques are concerned, one Jagat Narayan had reported that the cheques are not being deposited in the account because names of school are not tally on the cheque and in the enquiry report it has come that Mr. Deepak kumar is found guilty. In the light of these facts he submits that charges are against others whereas the petitioner has been made escape goat for the allegation which has been committed by other persons. 4. In view of the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the revision application of the petitioner is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, this court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to take decision on the revision petition pending before him as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of.