ORDER V.D. Gyani, J. -- 1. The petitioner has a long standing of being the Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Akodiya Mandi, District Shajapur, of which he was the Chairman from 1979 to 1985. He was holding the said post till passing of the impugned order dated 13.8.91 (Ann. P/10), passed by the Director Agricultural Produce Market Committees, Bhopal, respondent No.1 in exercise of his powers under Section 55 (1) & (2) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi, Adhiniyam 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'). It is this order which is the subject matter of Challenge in this petition. 2. On 13.7.91 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, AnnexureP/1, under S. 55 (1) of the Adhiniyam calling upon him to explain certain financial irregularities allegedly committed by him and further to show cause as to why he should not be removed from office for the misconduct alleged. The petitioner submitted his reply on 1.8.90 (Annexure-P/2) supported by documents (Annexures-P/3, P/4 and P/5). 3. The petitioner was heard on 19.11.90 in support of his case, but as the then Director, could not pass any order till he retired on 30.4.91, a fresh opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the incumbent in office of Director, on 13.8.91. The petitioner appeared before the respondent alongwith his counsel. Upon hearing "the petitioner anti his counsel the respondent, by the impugned order dated 16.8.91 (Anne. P/10) removed the petitioner from the post of Chairman as well as membership of the Market committee. It is this order which the petitioner has challenged in this petition. 4. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent who has filed his reply. 5. Shri Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments to charge No.3 & 5 which stand established against the petitioner. As far other charges the respondent has himself directed a fresh notice to be issued to the petitioner under Section 58 of the Adhiniyam within 2 weeks of the order, Ann. P/10 6. As far charge Nos. 3 & 5, found to have been established against the petitioner, Shri Garg argued that both these charges, even if taken on their face value, do not remotely suggest any misconduct or neglect of duty as contemplated by S. 55 of the Adhiniyam. P/10 6. As far charge Nos. 3 & 5, found to have been established against the petitioner, Shri Garg argued that both these charges, even if taken on their face value, do not remotely suggest any misconduct or neglect of duty as contemplated by S. 55 of the Adhiniyam. According to him the petitioner had amply explained the delay caused in utilising the amount of Rs. 5,500/- withdrawn by him on 20th January 1987. He had handed over this amount to the Nakedar for purchasing gifts as resolved by the Market Committee. 7. As far charge No.5 the petitioner's stand was that this amount of Rs. 9,600/- withdrawn on 19.11.1985, was in fact withdrawn by the accountant of the Market Committee. The petitioner had not acknowledged or signed its receipt and the respondent had failed to appreciate this stand, taken by the petitioner, in its true and proper perspective. 8. Shri Kutumbale, learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand submitted that the charges as found to have been proved against the petitioner are instances of abuse of power and proved misconduct, fully justifying the action taken by the respondent. He also urged that petitioner if aggrieved by the order Ann. P/1 0 had a remedy under section 59 of the Adhiniyam to approach the State Govt. 9. The real controversy lies in a narrow campus. It is significant to note that the respondent had not only heard the petitioner, but also his counsel and the impugned order has been passed after fully hearing given to the petitioner. It is not the petitioner's case that he was not heard. What is contended is, that petitioner's stand was not properly appreciated and the alleged misconduct is not of such nature as to incur disqualification. It is not within the scope of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence or material placed by the petitioner, and come to a different conclusion. It is well settled that a writ of certiorari can be issued on any of the following grounds :- (a) Want or excess of jurisdiction; (b) violation of procedure or disregard of principles of natural justice; & (c) any error of law apparent on the face of record. . It is in the light of these principles that the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel. need to be examined. . It is in the light of these principles that the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel. need to be examined. 10. So far as the first charge is concerned, petitioner's defence is that he had entrusted the amount withdrawn by him to the Nakedar. It is surprising to find that a Chairman of a Market Committee should seek shelter behind a Nakedar for having withdrawn Rs. 5,500/- on 20.1.87 for purchase of gifts and then handing over the amount to Nakedar on 25.5.87 exactly four months and five days after its withdrawal, either for purchasing the gifts or depositing the same in the Market Committee. For almost two years no gifts were purchased. As is evident from the cash memo Ann. PIS that these gifts were purchased on 22.4.89, yet no account was submitted till 18. 9.89. The petitioner cannot absolve himself by saying that he had handed over the amount to the Nakedar for purchasing gifts. How is the Nakedar concerned with or liable for such purchase? How can the Chairman shirk from his responsibility firstly to justify and secondly to account for such withdrawal. The above facts speak volume for themselves. 11. So far as the charge of obtaining Rs. 9,600/- on 19.11.85 is concerned, the petitioner came out with an out right denial. His case was that the accountant, had made an entry without his signatures. In his reply to the show cause notice, Ann. P/2, he has stated that this amount has been deposited in the Mandi Committee on 14.11.86with interest of Rs. 240/-. 12. It was argued by Shri Garg that the above acts do not constitute such a misconduct as to incur disqualification. The petitioner has placed on record photostat copies of deposits made by him. the Director has considered all these receipts and upon hearing, not only the petitioner, but his counsel as well, has come to the conclusion that the amount was deposited by the petitioner on the following dates :- Rs. 5,600/- on 19.11.85 Rs. 4,000/- on 14.11.86 Rs. 240/- as interest on 14.11.86 (Filed as Annexure P/7, P/8 & P/9) along with the petition. 13. It is not the scope of present petition to reappraise evidence and come to a different conclusion. Really speaking the view taken by the Director of material evidence placed on record cannot be assailed on any legitimate grounds. 14. 4,000/- on 14.11.86 Rs. 240/- as interest on 14.11.86 (Filed as Annexure P/7, P/8 & P/9) along with the petition. 13. It is not the scope of present petition to reappraise evidence and come to a different conclusion. Really speaking the view taken by the Director of material evidence placed on record cannot be assailed on any legitimate grounds. 14. If the petitioner had not taken the amount of Rs. 9,600/- as contended by him where was the occasion for this pure-altruism in depositing the same? It was argued that the petitioner had neither obtained the amount nor deposited the same. It does not stand to reason that a Chairman of the Market Committee, would allow his name to be misused in such a shady deal, without even raising a whisper against it. It is not his case, that he at any point of time earlier than filing of reply to the charge sheet, protested against such misuse of his name. The reply Ann. P-2 is itself couched in a guarded language. 15. Section 55 (2) empowers the Director to remove a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a market committee, from the office for the following reasons :- i) Misconduct ii) negligence in the performance of duty iii) incapability to perform duty. iv) being persistently remiss the discharge of duty. 16. The acts charged and found to have been established, clearly fall within the purview of misconduct. 'Misconduct' is neither defined nor enumerated under the Act. It is a generic term, and means to conduct amiss, to mismanage, wrong or improper conduct., bad behaviour, unlawful behaviour or conduct. It includes malfeasance, mis-demeanour, deliquency and offence 'misconduct' and 'negligence' are different notions, but some kind of negligence may amount to misconduct while some others may not. In the instant case the petitioner's conduct who enjoyed a position of trust in the market committee, can undoubtedly be said to be improper conduct, falling within the purview of misconduct. 17. For the reasons stated above the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. The dismissal of this petition does not necessarily call for a halt. It raises certain perturbing issues, which cannot be rightly brushed aside. There is a certain irony in this petition. 17. For the reasons stated above the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. The dismissal of this petition does not necessarily call for a halt. It raises certain perturbing issues, which cannot be rightly brushed aside. There is a certain irony in this petition. What is objected to by the Director is not the distribution of gifts amongst the members of the Market Committee from its funds, but the retention of money by the petitioner for unduly long period. Chapter VII of the Act deals with Market Committee Fund. There are only two sections 38 & 39 in this chapter. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that all expenditure incurred by the market committee under or for the purpose of this Act shall be defrayed out of the "Market Committee Fund.". Sub-section (2) of S. 38 prescribes the mode of depositing this fund in some Co- operative Bank or any Scheduled Bank. Section 39 enumerates the purposes for which and even if each one of them is most liberally construed yet the provision for purchasing of gifts to members of the market committee chargeable on the market committee fund cannot be adjusted or accommodated under or against anyone of the heads. Sub-section (ix) of Section 39 reads as follows :- "39 (ix) Any other purpose whereon the expenditure to the market committee fund is in the public interest, subject to the prior sanction of the State Government." What 'public interest' was going to be served by making such gifts ? 19. Section 25A deals with preparation and sanction of budget of the market committee. Sub-section 4 thereof provides :- "25A (4) the market committee shall not take up or give order for execution of any construction work estimated to more than Rupees Five thousand without prior permission of the Director, even if there is a provision therefor in the sanctioned budget." If without prior permission of the Director even in case of sanctioned budget, the market committee, cannot place an order for execution of any construction work estimated to more than Rs. 5,000/-. It is here that the Director has to share his blame. 5,000/-. It is here that the Director has to share his blame. It is possibly for this reason that the Director does not object to the making gifts as such his precise objection is about retention of money withdrawn for purchase of gifts for unduly long period, fitting the shadow and sparing the substance. 20. No where does the scheme of the Act provide nor is it spelt out from any of its provision for making such gifts. Sec. 14 of the Adhiniyam deals with duties of market committee. Sub-sec. 4 (i) (ii) of Sec. 17 reads as follows :- "17 (4) In addition to the duties aforementioned the market committee shall also be responsible for -- . (i) the maintenance of proper checks on all receipts and payment by its officers; (ii) the proper execution of all works chargeable to the market committee fund; 21. Sub-section 2 (iv) enjoins the committee to supervise the conduct of the market functions and sub-section (xvi) directs the committee to prosecute persons for violating the provisions of the Act. Where the members of the market committee are recipients of gifts, with tacit consent, if not connivance of the Director, who does not, even before the Court object to such gifts being made in face of statutory duty cast on him, the question raised is who will prosecute whom? 22. It is a case not only of wrongful acts being committed, but wrongful omissions and failure to perform statutory public duties, as well. It is a case of gross neglect of duty, without attributing malicious or corrupt motives - a patent failure to carry out a public duty in maintaining proper check on all receipts and payments by office bearers of the market commitee. 23. Thus, petition offers both a study in retrospect as well as in prospect. Consider what may appear to be the creative novality of making presents to otherwise unremunerated members of the market committee, combined with the accelerated pace shown after almost two years of retention of money withdrawn for purchase of gifts - has its own tonic effect and shock to accord legal recognisition to such gifts a blame which the respondent on facts as established in the case, cannot escape sharing. Such practices must be put an end to without any loss of time.