- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed. The Petitioner was appointed and working as Shiksha Mitra and his engagement was terminated because of his involvement in case Crime No. 114 of 2010 under Sections 323, 504, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code for having assaulted the Branch Manager of the Chreyash Gramin Bank while he was on duty. The Appellant was arrested and sent to jail whereafter he was bailed out. The investigation was conducted by the police authorities and a charge sheet has also been filed. The Appellant is facing trial. On the basis of filing of charge sheet and having been confined in jail for 2 -3 days his engagement as Shiksha Mitra has been been cancelled against which the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 34479 of 2010 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13th July, 2010 with the direction to the District Magistrate, Aligarh to decide the representation of the Petitioner -Appellant. The representation has since been decided by the District Magistrate, Aligarh and it has been rejected. Vide order dated 3rd November, 2010 the District Magistrate had held that the Appellant is not entitled to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra because of his involvement in the aforementioned case as also the conduct and character of the Appellant is not so as to justify his functioning as Shiksha Mitra. The order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the District Magistrate was the subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had held that the District Magistrate after considering the various Government Orders has found that since the Petitioner is an accused of a serious crime, he is not entitled to function as Shiksha Mitra. Learned Single Judge further held that even apart from that, since the work of Shiksha Mitra involves interaction even with children, such a person cannot be allowed to pollute their minds.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the Appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 29th November, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to the present appeal, grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it. Sri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the engagement of the Appellant as Shiksha Mitra could have been terminated only if the incumbent was a dismissed employee of the State Government, Central Government, Local Body or any Government aided Institution or has been found guilty of charges involving moral turpitude. According to him none of these conditions as mentioned in the Government Order dated 1st July, 2001 is present in this case and, therefore, the Appellant could not have been disengaged from the post of Shiksha Mitra. He also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nanhe v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010(6) ALJ 177 in which this Court has held that the Gram Pradhan cannot be disqualified if he has not been found guilty of being involved in moral turpitude and mere involvement in the case would not be the ground for disqualification.
(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the nature of work which the Appellant is required to discharge is teaching students in order to make them responsible citizens of this country. If the teacher, who is imparting education to them is himself involved in slapping a Bank Manager on duty and causing grievous hurt, the nature of education which he would impart to the student would speak for itself. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the work of Shikha Mitra involves interaction even with children and such a person cannot be allowed to pollute their minds, therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any legal infirmity.;