SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THIS matter was listed at serial no. 70 of the today's cause list. It was mentioned at 2. 00 p. m. by learned counsel Shri Kalla that while admitting this petition the learned Vacation Judge of this Court restricted the interim relief till today, therefore, the same may be extended as the notice issued against the respondents has not yet returned served or un-served. From the record of the case, I found that there was an application filed by one Jai Singh, up-Sarpanch, who is holding the charge of the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat filed by learned counsel Shri G. R. Punia for impleading him as a party respondent in the writ petition.
(2.) CONSIDERING the serious averments made in the application to be impleaded as party respondents, learned counsel Shri Anand Purohit was directed to accept notice and Mr. Kalla was asked to argue the matter. Initially, he was little bit hesitant in arguing the matter and he insisted to adjourn the case, which request was refused by me and thereafter, he has fully argued the matter and raised contentions which have been raised in this petition itself. From the averments made in the petition one thing is very clear that the petitioner was suspended earlier by an order dated 29. 9. 1997 (Annexure 11) and lateron, he was reinstated by an order dated 15. 11. 1997 (Annex. 14 ). From the averments made in the application to be impleaded as party respondent it appears that the petitioner managed with the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu, who exonerated the petitioner from the charges and, thereupon, he was reinstated as Sarpanch. However, lateron when it came to the notice of the Government then fresh enquiry was entrusted to Addl. District Magistrate, Churu on 31. 3. 1999, who after calling for explanation from the petitioner submitted his report against the petitioner on 19. 5. 99 (Annex. 17 ). Considering the said report at Annex. 17 the petitioner was once again placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 31. 5. 99 (Annex. 18 ). The petitioner has stated almost everything, but cleverly did not mention the fact about his filing the writ petition no. 5746/97 against his first order of suspension (Annex. 11) before this Court at Jaipur Bench. Because the challenge was not successful and he had to withdraw that petition, it is only thereafter, it appears that he could manage with the authority and got the report in his favour and got reinstated as Sarpanch. However, when it had come to the notice the Govt. fresh inquiry was entrusted to the independent authority, who found that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner of serious charge of mis-appropriation of amount running into 1. 52 lacs. If on this ground the petitioner is suspended once again then no fault can be found with such suspension order. This Court, ordinarily, does not interfere with suspension order. If the petitioner had disclosed the real facts about his unsuccessful challenge against the earlier suspension order then perhaps the learned Vacation Judge might not have admitted the petition and straightway dismissed it. The law is very well settled that persons who do not come with clean hands before this Court they are not entitled for any relief from this Court. If they have obtained any relief by suppression of facts then it cannot be allowed to continue even for a day. In view of the above discussion, this petition is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Stay petition is also dismissed. . ;