Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. It is a century old dictum that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his claim. The Supreme Court and this Court applied this dictum in the following cases for declining to hear the petitioner/appellant on the merits of his case :- (1) Har Narain v. Badri Dass, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1558. (2) Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1015. (3) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1726. (4) S.P. Chengalvarara Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293 (S.C.); (5) R.G. Sinde v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. !673. (6) Chint Ram Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1406. (7) Bhupinderpal Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, (1968)70 P.L.R. 169. (8) Chiranji Lal and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors., (1978)80 P.L.R. 582 (F.B.). (9) Harbhajan Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1995 Pb. & Hry. 216 : 1994 P.L.J. 287. (10) Jai Bhagwan Jain v. H.S.E.B. Panchkula, C.W.P. No. 15448 of 1993, decided on 21.9.1994: (11) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1994(4) S.C.T. 75 (P&H): 1994(5) S.L.R. 73. (12) Kaka Ram Pars Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 691. (13) C.W.P, No. 11686 of 1996 - Shri Kant and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 21.1.1997. (14) C.W.P. No. 4381 of 1998 - Arihant Super Rice Land and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 6.8.1998. (15) C.W.P. No. 18304 of 1998 - Smt. Krishna Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 1.12.1998. (16) C.W.P. No. 2585 of 1999 - Santa Singh v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 24.2.1999. (17) C.W.P. No. 11538 of 1999 - Meenu Seth v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 2.3.2000. (18) C.W.P. No. 3520 of 2000 - Rajinder Parshad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 31.5.2000. (19) L.P.A. No. 349 of 1992 - Cement Corporation of India, Charkhi Dadri v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Hissar and Ors., decided on 6.9.2001. 2. (18) C.W.P. No. 3520 of 2000 - Rajinder Parshad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 31.5.2000. (19) L.P.A. No. 349 of 1992 - Cement Corporation of India, Charkhi Dadri v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Hissar and Ors., decided on 6.9.2001. 2. In Jai Bhagwan v. Haryana State Electricity Board (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had observed as under:- "Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence) are the two basic values of life, which have been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi. People from different parts of the world come here to learn these fundamental principles of life. However, post-independence era and particularly the last two decades have witnessed sharp decline in these two basic values of life. Materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and quest for personal gain is so immense that people do not have any, regard for the truth. Proceedings in the Courts, which were at one time considered to be pious and the people considered it their duty to tell the truth in the Court now stand vitiated by the attempt made by the patties to pollute the ends of justice." 3. We have prefaced disposal of this petition by above noted observation and reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court because after perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the petitioner deserves to be non-suited only on the ground that he has not approached the court with clean hands. 4. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dalipgarh in March, 2000 by defeating Jeeta Singh and others. Soon after the election, the petitioner presided over the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Dalipgarh held on 2.5.2002 in which the following resolution was passed:- "It has been decided by Panchayat Dalipgarh that a wine shop be opened in the village because illicit liquor is being sold in the village and there is apprehension of danger to the people. The wine shops are at far away place and the people have to go at a distance for its purchase. Therefore, to stop inconvenience to the people, it is necessary to open a wine shop in Village Dalipgarh." 5. The wine shops are at far away place and the people have to go at a distance for its purchase. Therefore, to stop inconvenience to the people, it is necessary to open a wine shop in Village Dalipgarh." 5. By taking advantage of the aforementioned resolution, the petitioner is said to have calendestinely given contract of running the liquor shop to one Pradeep Mittal by taking a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. When this was brought to the notice of Deputy Commissioner, Ambala (respondent No. 2) by Panches of the Gram Panchayat, he got a preliminary enquiry conducted through District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ambala, who submitted report with the following fmdings:- "1. That a resolution has been passed by Gram Panchayat Dalipgarh on 3.5.2000 that a wine shop be got opened in the village and a sum of Rs. 80,000/- be taken from the Contractor for the construction of the boundary wall of cremation ground. 2. That you have received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the contractor, but has not issued any receipt and you have also not spent this amount on the construction of boundary wall of cremation ground. You have also not disclosed to any person or Panch of the village that you have received the amount from the contractor, in this manner you have silently embezzled the above mentioned amount." 6. Respondent No. 2 accepted the preliminary enquiry report and issued notice An-nexure P2 dated 19.7.2002 to the petitioner proposing to take action under Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act). In his reply, the petitioner controverted the findings recorded by the District Development and Panchayat Officer. thereafter, respondent No. 2 appointed Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ambala to conduct regular enquiry into" the allegations levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the finding recorded in the preliminary enquiry. The latter submitted report Annexure P3 dated 18.9.2001 with the finding that the allegations of receiving Rs. 80,000/- has not been proved against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 rejected the enquiry report, vide order annexure P5 dated 10.10.2001 and appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to conduct fresh enquiry who after recording evidence including the statement of the petitioner, submitted report dated 1.3.2002 with the finding that the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been proved. 80,000/- has not been proved against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 rejected the enquiry report, vide order annexure P5 dated 10.10.2001 and appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to conduct fresh enquiry who after recording evidence including the statement of the petitioner, submitted report dated 1.3.2002 with the finding that the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Respondent No. 2 then issued notice Annexure P6 dated 14.3.2002 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be removed from the office of sarpanch. After giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 25.3.2002, respondent No. 2 passed order annexure P8 and removed him from the office of sarpanch. 7. The petitioner challenged his removal by filing an appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana Development and Panchayat Department vide order Annexure P10 dated 25.4.2002. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed C.W.P. No. 17649 of 2001 for quashing order annexure P5 dated 10.10.2001 by which respondent No. 2 had ordered fresh enquiry against him. The same was disposed of as infructuous on 29,4.2002 in view of the order of removal passed by respondent No. 2. 9. The petitioner has now challenged orders annexures P8 and P10 on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice and also on the ground that finding recorded in the second enquiry report which constituted the basis of the impugned order is perverse. In para 14(iv) of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred as under:- "iv) That no second inquiry was ever held and the petitioner did not receive any notice of the second inquiry. No witness was ever examined in the presence of the petitioner and he was only associated in the inquiry only on 25.3.2002; when he received a notice dated 14.3.2002 vide Annexure P-6 to appear before the Inquiry Officer." 10. In their, written statement, the respondents have controverted the aforementioned averment by making the following assertions;- "iv) That sub-para iv) of para No. 14 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer on 11.12.01, 16.01.02 and 28.2.02 and thus adequate opportunities of hearing have been afforded by the enquiry officer. It is submitted that petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer on 11.12.01, 16.01.02 and 28.2.02 and thus adequate opportunities of hearing have been afforded by the enquiry officer. It is further submitted notice dated 14.3.02 was issued to appear before Deputy Commissioner for personal hearing and not before the enquiry officer." 11. The petitioner filed replication reiterating his statement in the following words: "(iv) That para No. 14(iv) of the written statement is incorrect and hence denied. No notice was ever issued by the Second Inquiry Officer as alleged in this para. The petitioner only received one notice dated 14.3.2002 and except this he is not aware of any of the other notice. Moreover, the writ filed by the petitioner against the order of Second Inquiry dated 10.10.2001 has been challenged by the petitioner vide Civil Writ Petition No. 17649 of 2001 and it was during the pendency of the writ petition that the petitioner was dismissed in haste." 12. In the context of averments contained in paragraph 14(iv) of the writ petition and replication suggesting that second enquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner in complete violation of the rules of natural justice, we directed learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, yesterday to produce the enquiry report submitted by Additional Deputy Commissioner. 13. In compliance of the Courts direction, Shri Jaswant Singh produced two files which contain proceedings of the enquiry and the statements of witnesses recorded by Additional Deputy Commissioner. A perusal of the papers of the two files shows that the petitioner and other witnesses were duly informed of the dates of enquiry. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 19.2.2002, and signed order-sheet of that date. On 28.2.2002, his statements was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. That statements of other witnesses were also recorded on that day. 14. The files produced by Shri Jaswant Singh were shown to learned counsel for the petitioner who had no option but to concede that her client had, in fact, participated in the second enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner. 15. That statements of other witnesses were also recorded on that day. 14. The files produced by Shri Jaswant Singh were shown to learned counsel for the petitioner who had no option but to concede that her client had, in fact, participated in the second enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner. 15. From what has been mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has made a patently false averment in para 14(iv) of the writ petition and tried to mislead the court in believing that the second enquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala behind his back and, therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be invalided on the ground of violation of the basics of natural justice. Not only this, he reiterated this in the replication. 16. In our opinion, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in persuading the Court to entertain the petition by making false assertion regarding denial of opportunity of defence in the second enquiry. He also succeeded in persuading the Court to pass an interim order in C.M. No. 20851 of 2002 for staying of the bye-election for the post of Sarpanch. Therefore, he is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 5000/-.