Regular Departmental Inquiry Can Be Dispensed With Where Employee’s Own Admission Establishes Misconduct; ‘Useless Formality Theory’ applied to Uphold Dismissal Without Departmental Inquiry: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Manmeet Singh v. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others

Date of Judgment: 26 May 2026

Citation: CWP-9646-2020

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 12(ii) and (iii) of the MARKFED Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1990, where the employee’s own signed physical verification report established a massive stock shortage causing substantial financial loss to the Federation. The Court further held that no interference under Article 226 was warranted as the disciplinary authority had recorded reasons for invoking the special procedure, the findings were supported by evidence, and the doctrine of “useless formality” applied since only one conclusion was possible on the admitted facts.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the orders dismissing him from service as a Field Officer and Branch Incharge of MARKFED after a physical verification revealed a shortage of 21,973 wheat bags valued at over ₹2.56 crore. He contended that his dismissal was illegal as no regular departmental inquiry was conducted, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He further relied upon the police investigation report and an affidavit of the co-custodian accepting responsibility to contend that he could not be held liable.

The respondents argued that the petitioner, being the Branch Incharge and joint custodian of the wheat stock, had himself signed the physical verification report acknowledging the shortage. The disciplinary authority invoked the special procedure under Rule 12(ii) and (iii) of the MARKFED Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1990 after recording reasons that the petitioner’s conduct had caused enormous financial loss to the Federation and that holding a regular inquiry was not expedient in its interest. It was further submitted that the petitioner had also been granted a post-decisional hearing before the appellate authority.

The High Court examined Rule 12 of the MARKFED Rules and held that the power to dispense with a departmental inquiry could validly be exercised where the disciplinary authority records reasons demonstrating that such inquiry is not reasonably practicable or is not expedient in the interest of the Federation. Referring to Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Court observed that judicial review in such matters is confined to examining whether the reasons recorded are relevant and not arbitrary.

The Court found that the petitioner had admittedly signed the physical verification report recording the shortage and was jointly responsible for the custody of the wheat stock. In view of these admitted facts, the Court held that the case attracted the “useless formality” principle recognised in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, as no different conclusion could have emerged even if a regular inquiry had been held. The Court also reiterated that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and that supervisory responsibility cannot be avoided merely because another employee assumes responsibility or because the criminal investigation proceeds differently.

The Court further held that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate considering the magnitude of the stock shortage and the financial loss suffered by the Federation. Since the findings of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities were based on cogent evidence and suffered from no perversity, no interference under Article 226 was called for.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. It held that the disciplinary authority had validly invoked the special procedure under Rule 12 of the MARKFED Punishment & Appeal Rules after recording adequate reasons, that the admitted documentary evidence established the petitioner’s responsibility for the massive stock shortage, and that the absence of a regular departmental inquiry caused no prejudice in the facts of the case. The Court further held that the punishment of dismissal was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate and declined to exercise its limited power of judicial review under Article 226.