M. Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners who were helpers under the first respondent attacks Exts. P2, P3 and P5 orders issued to them. The short facts necessary for determination of this case could be given as follows.

2. The petitioners are working as helpers under the first respondent and it so happened that a memo had been issued on 18.9.1995 to the first petitioner to the effect that while holding the post of helper at I.M.F.L. Outlet, he had caused shortage in stock worth Rs. 47,592/-. Similar memo was also issued to the other petitioner as well. Explanations were submitted, but they had denied the allegations. Thereafter, proceedings of the Managing Director dated 4.5.1987 had been issued stating that they were found guilty of laches and are held responsible for the shortage of stock. Thus, they have been directed to re-imburse the loss that had been suffered by the Corporation. Appeals were filed against such orders under Rule 16(iii) of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Helpers' Service Rules, 1978 as evidenced by Ext. P4. However, the appeals were in due course dismissed.

3. The short question to be considered is as to whether proceedings that had been tak