Honble MUKHERJI, Actg.C. J. – The writ petitioner-appellant was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bakaliya, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur. There were two fold charges against him of having abused his position as a Sarpanch and a proceeding was taken against him by the State Government under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The first charge was that a piece of agricultural land measuring 5 bighas was gifted to the Panchayat by one Rupa Ram for common use. this piece of land without being converted was given by way of pattas treating it as abadi land and thus, the apposite Rules were violated and the writ petitioner- appellant misused his position as a Sarpanch. The second charge against him was that the land which was meant for common use and was received as a gift in the shape of agricultural land was given by way of pattas violating the terms and conditions of the gift deed. (2) The defence inter-alia of the writ petitioner appellant was that he might have tabled a particular resolution before the Gram Panchayat, but then the resolution was taken by the entire Gram Panchayat as a whole and he had no specific role to play in the matter. There is no such allegation that the beneficiaries under such settlement as resorted to by the Gram Panchayat were his own kinsmen or his casts men or that the writ petitioner-appellant reaped any personal benefit out of such settlement effected by the Gram Panchayat. (3) The provisions under section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 specifically postulates that the State Government may, by an order in writing and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, and making such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove any Sarpanch, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such or in the opinion of the State Government, has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct. (4) Admittedly there was an enquiry against the writ petitioner- appella, in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct and, as such, he has been remmoved. (4) Admittedly there was an enquiry against the writ petitioner- appella, in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct and, as such, he has been remmoved. As the Statute has now been replaced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 38 becomes relevant for our purpose.Under the provision of Section 38 also, the State Government may, by order in writing and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove from office any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such or is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct.It has been admitted by Mr-K.L. Jasmatia, learned Additional, Advocate General appearing for the State in this matter that there is no definition of disgraceful conduct; given in either of the Statutes. (5) In State of U.P. and Ors. V/s Mewa Lal Yadav reported in (1) as regards the expression `flagrantly abused which appeared in Section 40(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, it was observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that it required that even if there is no sinister or oblique motive there must be something to show that in committing the acts complained of the member concerned was using his position as a member for a wrong purpose or that he was taking some advantage of his position which ought not to have been taken and that he was doing so ina glaring and scandalous manner. (6) The expression used in both t he Statutes in Rajasthan, however, mentions disgraceful conduct or misconduct in the discharge of his duties. The State Government was apriori satisfied about the findings made in the enquiry and sought to remove the writ petitioner appellant from the post of Sarpanch, which has now been stayed in course of the present proceedings. (7) It has been alleged by the learned Additional Advocate General that if it was originally agricultural land, it Could not be Converted into Abadi land and if on the basis of it being treated as Abadi land it has been distributed amongst arious settlees, the matter was grossly illegal. Whether it merely amounted to an error of judgment or it was consciously so done, depends upon the question of appreciation of facts. Whether it merely amounted to an error of judgment or it was consciously so done, depends upon the question of appreciation of facts. (8) In State of Tamil Nadu and another V/s S. Subramaniam (2) three learned Judges of the Supreme Court held inter-alia while discussing the power of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act that the conclusions reached by the authority based on evidence could not br disturbed by the Tribunal since the Tribunal is devoid of power to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. Mr.Jasmatia, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of the ratio as propounded in the said-case, contended be fore us that while making judicial review, this Court has also the special contour beyond which we may not travel by way of re-appreciating the entire evidence.We may at best leave the matter for re- consideration by the State Government as to whether the overt act as allegedly resorted to by the writ petitioner-appellant was merely an error of judgment or it did really amount to disgraceful conduct and for this purpose, let there be a reappreciation at the highest level of the State Government and let it be so done by the Additional Secretary of the appropriate Department of the Government which we oder accordingly. (9). With these observations, the present special appeal stands disposed of with the consequent modification of the trial courts order.