Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237952018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7508/2018 APURBA DAS SON OF SRI DEBESWAR DAS, VILL- GELLEPARA, P.O. SORBHOG, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317 (EX-CONSTABLE/GD(UT) CISF NO.- 170512480. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH EASTERN SECTOR, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE 13 CGO COMPLEXES LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL/ TS CISF / NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY ACADEMY HAKIMPET ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD- 78 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE RTI BHILLAI P.O.- UTAI DIST. DURG (CG) PIN- 490711 Page No.# 2/4 5:THE SR. COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE RTC MUNDALI DIST. CATTAK (ORISSA) PIN- 754013 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. C DAS,MS. C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Ms. P Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the termination order dated 08.09.2017 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of defective colour vision as per the opinion of the Review Medical Board. 3. The petitioner has appointed as a Constable (GD) in the CISF with effect from 05.04.2017. Thereafter, he was serving under probation. During the Probation Period, he was medically examined and the Review Medical Board upon examining the petitioner found him to be colour blind and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 08.09.2017. An appeal filed before the authorities also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned CGC has contested the matter by filing her counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that even in the order of appointment, there is a provision that petitioner may be discharged if work or Page No.# 3/4 conduct is found to be unsatisfactory or that he is not fit for permanent appointment. The petitioner has not been able to make out the case in support of his contention that the findings of the review medical board are contrary or in conflict with any other opinion rendered by Specialist. Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001 reads as under: “26. Termination – (1) Where the appointing authority has terminated the services of a probationer, the Inspector General may own his own motion or otherwise reopen the case and after making such enquiry as thinks fit may : (i) confirm the action taken by the appointing authority; (ii) withdraw the notice; (ii) reinstate the probationer in service; or (iv) make such other order in the case as he may consider proper: Provided that except in special circumstances, which should be recorded in writing, no case shall be reopened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three months. (a) From the date of notice, in a case where notice is given. (b) From the date of termination of service in a case where no notice is given. (2) Where a probationer is reinstated in service under above rule, the order of reinstatement shall specify; (i) the amount of proportion of pay and allowances, if any, to be paid to the probationer for the period of his absence between the date of termination of his services and date of his reinstatement; and (ii) whether the said period shall be treated as a period (spent) on duty for any specified purpose or purposes. (3) Where the Inspector General has terminated the service of a probationer, acting as appointing authority, all the powers prescribed in sub-rule (1) and (2) above shall be exercised by the Director General and where the Director General has issued the order of termination by the Central Government. (4) During the period of probation or its extension thereof, as the case may be, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of a member of the Force on the grounds of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment of that member of the Force or for his failure to pass the basic training or repeat course, by tendering a notice of one month to that effect or one month’s pay in lieu thereof.” 5. As per Rules 26(4) the petitioner was terminated on the ground of false or incorrect information at the time of appointment as a member into the force. 5. The claim of the writ petitioner is that there was no false furnishing of Page No.# 4/4 information. However, the report of the Review Medical Board clearly reflects that the petitioner suffers from colour blindness. The petitioner has not been able to support his contention by any independent finding by any specialist to suggest that it is contrary. 6. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit to exercise its writ jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the petitioner and interfere with the termination order. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit, the same stands dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated, Pending I.As if any are also dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant