JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank through its Managing Director, assailing the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur dated 01.08.2003 in Appeal No.71/2001 whereby the respondents Narendra Kumar Sahgal's appeal has been allowed and the order under Section 74 (1) & (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1965') has been set aside and the finding of embezzlement having been committed by the said respondent of an amount of Rs.80,000/- has been set aside with further direction to conduct a fresh enquiry under the said provisions. Against the other persons named in the audit dated 24.07.2001 namely Mr. M.R. Chugh and Sri Bhatnagar. 3. The learned Senior Counsel has canvassed before this Court that the appellate authority has travelled beyond the findings of the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies (Bikaner) and conduct the enquiry under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965. It is a submitted that completely new case has been set up by the appellate authority with regard to said amount of Rs.80,000/-. Although, it was no one's case. It is submitted that a clear finding was arrived at while conducting preliminary enquiry under Section 74 (1) of the Act of 1965 that it was the respondent Narendra Kumar Sahgal who was having found guilty of embezzlement of Rs.80,000/- as there was difference in amount between the requisition slip and the original slip and there was also signatures of the said respondent on the back side of the requisition slip. 4. The three requisition slips for the amount of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- were differing from the copy available with the Head Office where the demand was of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- only and thus, an excess of Rs.80,000/- was received by Shri Narendra Kumar Sahgal from the Bank and was not deposited in the head office. 5. It is further urged that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority of someone else having committed embezzlement is totally vague and cannot be relied upon. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has taken this Court through the order passed by the appellate authority. 5. It is further urged that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority of someone else having committed embezzlement is totally vague and cannot be relied upon. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has taken this Court through the order passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that the appellate authority has powers akin to the power of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Bikaner) who conducts an enquiry under Section 74 (1) as well as under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965 and he can examine the entire record afresh and reach to his own independent conclusion. It is further stated that the appellate authority has thoroughly examined the record and has given a finding that in the original requisition slip there is no over-writing and the original requisition slip mentions amount of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively with the signatures of the respondent in the back side. Thus, admittedly he has withdrawn the amount as per the original requisition slip given by the Head Office book. However, the duplicate copy which has been found in Head Office of the concerned department shows different amount of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. The duplicate copy is not a carbon copy of the requisition slip and there is likely possibility of a different amount been entered into the duplicate copy. It has also been observed by the appellate authority that even in the cash register in the Head Office there has been an over-writing and the amount of Rs.80,000/- has been over-written and Rs.30,000/- amount has been replaced. On the basis of such facts, the appellate authority has, therefore, rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondent could not have committed the embezzlement. A finding has also been arrived that the audit report had put the burden on three persons namely Mr. C.K. Chugh, respondent and one Shri Bhatnagar and an enquiry ought to have been conducted jointly against all three of them. However, the enquiry was only conducted against the respondent while the other two were left out. Both the other persons were officers while the respondent is holding the post of LDC. Bank has chosen to challenge the order without availing the alternative remedy available under a statute. 7. However, the enquiry was only conducted against the respondent while the other two were left out. Both the other persons were officers while the respondent is holding the post of LDC. Bank has chosen to challenge the order without availing the alternative remedy available under a statute. 7. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the appellate order passed in Appeal No.71/2001 by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) deserves to be modified to the extent that the remand of the matter should be as against all three persons and not against the other two while exonerating the respondent. 8. Taking into consideration that the audit report puts its burden on all three persons jointly, enquiry afresh ought to have been taken under Section 74 (1) & (2) of the Act of 1965 against all three persons. The provisions of Section 74 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1965 now stand as similar to Section 57 (1) under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 9. Accordingly, judgment passed by the appellate authority dated 01.08.2003 in Appeal No.71/2001 is quashed and set aside only to the extent of remanding the matter afresh to the Joint Registrar for conducting enquiry afresh under Section 57 (1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations. Let the exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order.