JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.:-The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-corporation on 28.3.1988. He was served with a notice on 3.2.1999 whereby he was called upon to submit his reply within 30 days. He filed the reply on 13.2.1999. He was removed from service on 10.3.1999. He filed an appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation. The same stood rejected on 18.11.1999. 2. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was permanent employee of the respondent-corporation and it was necessary to hold a regular inquiry as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965. He then contended that the petitioner could not be terminated by invoking section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide office order dated 10.3.1999. 3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has supported the issuance of order dated 10.3.1999. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver, as noticed above, on 28.3.1988. He had put in 10 years and 10 months service at the time of issuance of show cause notice on 3.2.1999. In show cause notice as many as 22 instances of misconduct, including penalties imposed upon him, have been mentioned. He was permanent employee of the respondent-corporation. It is not disputed by Mr. Adarsh Sharma that disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated against the employees of the Corporation as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965 before the imposition of major penalty. In the present case no inquiry has been held by the respondent-corporation while removing him from service vide office order dated 10.3.1999. It was a case where regular inquiry was required to be held against the petitioner on the basis of misconduct attributed to him in the show cause notice. The corporation has devised a noble method of dispensing with the services of the petitioner by invoking section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is true that in very very exceptional cases it may not be possible for the employer to hold an inquiry, however, the reasons for not holding the inquiry against an incumbent have to be convincing and cogent and are required to be recorded separately. It is true that in very very exceptional cases it may not be possible for the employer to hold an inquiry, however, the reasons for not holding the inquiry against an incumbent have to be convincing and cogent and are required to be recorded separately. The only reason assigned which can be gathered from the office order dated 3.2.1999 for dispensing with the inquiry is that it was not possible to hold inquiry due to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner coupled with the fact that it would entail inconvenience besides loss of time and finances. This cannot be construed as sufficient and convincing grounds for dispensing with the holding of regular departmental inquiry. The decision not to hold departmental inquiry cannot be taken arbitrarily. There has to be recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. However, in the present case, the reasons have been assigned in the impugned order. The decision to dispense with the departmental inquiry cannot be based on the ipse dixt of the disciplinary authority. The reasons to be specified must be based on certain objective facts and not the outcome of the whims and fancies of the disciplinary authority. The reasons assigned for not holding the departmental inquiry is that the petitioner was absenting himself and it would entail inconvenience besides loss of time and finances are not sufficient. 6. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has not disputed that in case any major penalty is to be inflicted upon the employee of the corporation as stipulated under rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965, a regular inquiry is required to be conducted under rule 14. The penalty of removal inflicted upon the petitioner is major penalty. 7. The services of the petitioner, who was permanent employee, could not be dispensed with by invoking section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not applicable. A charge-sheet was required to be issued to him in view of specific instances of misconduct attributed to him as per the show cause notice. The penalty of removal could be imposed only after holding regular departmental inquiry by associating the petitioner with the same. A bare perusal of Annexure A-1 reveals that there are specific instances of misconduct attributed to the petitioner. The penalty of removal could be imposed only after holding regular departmental inquiry by associating the petitioner with the same. A bare perusal of Annexure A-1 reveals that there are specific instances of misconduct attributed to the petitioner. He had filed the reply to the show cause notice. The same has not been taken into consideration by the respondents. He had taken a specific ground in his reply that there ought to have been regular inquiry under the rules. This aspect has also been over looked by the disciplinary authority while passing office order dated 10.3.1999. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure A-3 dated 10.3.1999 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent-corporation to deal with the petitioner in accordance with law. The consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs.