Judgment :- 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 taken against the petitioners were warranted or was it necessary for the Corporation to hold further detailed enquiries in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The submission of the petitioners was that it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to hold enquiries and prove the charges against them, in view of the stand taken by them. However, reliance is placed by the respondent Corporation on the governing services rules to which reference has already been made. It is pointed out that Rule 13(ii) of the rules envisage the procedure to be followed in such cases. It has been pointed out that these lapses had been categorized and treated as a minor misconduct. Respondent therefore contends that it was not mandatory that a domestic enquiry be held as this was not a service condition of the petitioners and they were bound by the rules which had been approved by the Government and thus valid and operative. 4. In the case of misconduct that are committed, it is well settled that proper opportunities had to be granted to the workmen to answer the allegations. 4. In the case of misconduct that are committed, it is well settled that proper opportunities had to be granted to the workmen to answer the allegations. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners that it will be possible for an employer to frame conditions of service, so as to prescribe modalities and the manner in which the enquiries are to be held. This has adequately been specified and it cannot be stated that the proceedings of the Managing Director are in any way vitiated. At least there is no allegation that the procedure was not followed. Respondent also submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved about the findings and the punishments imposed, being an industrial workmen, it will not prevent them from getting the matters adjudicated under the Industrial disputes Act. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Apparel Export promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (AIR 1999 SC 625), it is submitted that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 was not expected to go in detail to the facts of the case or appreciate the evidence that had been recorded. It was only envisaged that the procedure that has been prescribed are to be followed while taking disciplinary action. In so far as the petitioners have been proceeded on the basis that they are bound by the rules and an appeal has also been filed under the rules, it will not be possible for this Court to held that the procedure adopted by the Corporation was against the principles of natural justice. 5. Therefore the issue to be considered is whether in a case of disciplinary proceedings, a domestic enquiry is always essential. 6. The answer can only be in the negative. The service conditions of an employee are governed by rules, standing orders, regulations, or settlements. There is no law which provide that in all cases of disciplinary action, an enquiry is to precede. The principles of domestic enquiry, to conform with fair play and natural justice is mostly brought about by judicial precedents. 7. Therefore, it would be within the realm of contract to provide for the manner in which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and completed. In the present case, the Rules govern procedure. Similar rules govern the State and Central Government employees as well. 7. Therefore, it would be within the realm of contract to provide for the manner in which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and completed. In the present case, the Rules govern procedure. Similar rules govern the State and Central Government employees as well. Thus, if the situation is safeguarded by Rules, or other stipulations, it is not necessary that a domestic enquiry should always be arranged. There is no allegations that the powers have been abused. As such the challenge will not lie, and the O.P. is dismissed.