Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010118232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3200/2025 SRI ROHIT KUMAR YADAV S/O. SRI DAYASHANKAR YADAV, R/O. VILLAGE DUDPATIL LAMARGRAM, DUDPATIL PART - VI, P.O. HATICHORA, P.S. SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE LODHI ROAD 13 CGO S COMPLEX NEW DELHI -110003 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE PERS BLOCK NO.13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 4:THE COMMANDANT CISF UNIT IGI AIRPORT NEW DELHI P.O. PALAM AIRPORT NEW DELHI -110037 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM. PIN CODE 788001 Page No.# 2/11 6:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CACHAR SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM. PIN CODE 78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MS. J GHOSH,MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. C K S BARUAH (C.G.C.),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA · Date on which Judgment was reserved : Open Court Dictation · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 16.06.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. DD Barman, learned State Counsel and Mr. CKS Baruah, leaned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had applied for and was selected for appointment as a Constable (GD) in the CISF vide appointment letter dated 11/11/2022. He was placed on probation period for 2 (two) years and during his probation period he Page No.# 3/11 was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. It is submitted that in view of his posting he was required to reside at Delhi. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village-Dudpatil, Lamargram, Dudpatil Part-VI, Hatichora, Silchar, Cachar and the said address was also furnished along with the papers filed during the process of selection. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment order was issued to the petitioner by post and the address of the petitioner was clearly reflected in the appointment order. Thereafter, the CISF Authorities conducted a verification through the State Department and perhaps because the writ petitioner was posted at Delhi at the relevant point in time during his probation period, he was not available at the address, particulars of which the petitioner had placed before the Department. A report was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar by communication dated 02.08.2024 to the Deputy Commandant/Adm, for Dy. Inspector General CISF, Unit, IGI, Airport, New Delhi regarding the verification of residential status of the candidates whose verification was sought for by the CISF Authorities. In the said communication dated 02.08.2024 at serial no.9 the name of the writ petitioner appears along with the residential status of as many as 13 other candidates, who were verified and as per the said communication it was found that those candidates were not residing in the above address as per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (DSB) Cachar, Silchar by Page No.# 4/11 his communication no. DSB/SLC/IX/2024/769-782 Dated 24.07.2024. 3. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was terminated from service by the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 issued by the Commandant, CISF, Unit IGI Airport, New Delhi. It is submitted that in the said order the ground for termination was revealed that during physical verification the residential address, the Additional District Magistrate, District Cachar by communication dated 02.08.2024 had intimated that the writ petitioner was not residing at the address shown, namely, Village-Dudpatil Lamargram Pt.-VI, Post-Hatichera VII, P.S. : Malugram, Dist-Cachar, Assam. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that it is still his address and he resides at the same address and his appointment order was also sent in the said address. However, termination order was sent to the petitioner while he was serving on probation at the CISF. It is submitted that perhaps the during the verification time the petitioner was not found at his residence as he was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and that the Revenue Authorities had returned the findings that the petitioner was not available. Being aggrieved, by the order of termination dated 04.10.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General CISF, New Delhi and the said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 13.01.2025. Page No.# 5/11 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the termination of the writ petitioner from service on the purported ground for furnishing false information regarding his address is totally incorrect and after proper verification the termination order ought to have been issued which was not done and the CISF Authorities ought not to have been issued the termination order merely relying on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar during the time when the petitioner was not available at the given address and was admittedly rendering his service at his place of posting at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. He therefore submits that the impugned order of termination dated 04.10.2024 and also the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority should be interfered with, set aside and the petitioner be directed to reinstate in service with full back wages and service benefits. 5. Mr. CKS Baruah, learned CGC opposed to the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the Department has filed their affidavit-in-opposition where they have referred to the report given by the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar. Referring to the said affidavit he submits that once a report has been submitted that the petitioner was not found to be a resident of address submitted by the petitioner, there was no occasion for the CISF Authority to disbelieve the report given by the Page No.# 6/11 Department and accordingly, the petitioner was terminated from service. He referred to the CISF Rule 2001 and submits that under Rules 26 (4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 a candidate may be terminated during the period of probation or extension thereof on furnishing of false or incorrect information at the time of appointment of that member of the force. He therefore submits that on the basis of the report issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar that the writ petitioner was not a resident of the address as mentioned, it amounted to furnishing false and incorrect information by the petitioner regarding his address at the time of his appointment and therefore, in terms of the Rules 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 the writ petitioner was terminated from service. 6. Ms. DD Barman, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 & 6 on instructions submits that this Court by order dated 03.2.2026 had directed the Department to undertake a verification. In deference to the said order the verification was duly undertaken and the report was received from the Circle Officer and on the basis of the said report submitted by the Circle Officer, Sadar Revenue Circle, Silchar, Cachar, the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar was communicated by communication dated 20.03.2026 that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Dudhpatil Pt.-VI, PO-Haticherra-7, Dist.- Cachar, Assam and he is residing there. Page No.# 7/11 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available on record and also upon perusal of the communication placed today before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by his termination order dated 04.10.2024 from CISF as a Constable during probation period, more particularly, on the ground that he had furnished false information of his residential address and thereby invoking Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001. Further, his appeal against the termination order also stood dismissed by order dated 13.01.2025. The affidavit-in- opposition filed by the CISF Authorities reflects that physical verification was undertaken by the State Government Authorities only requisition made by the CISF Authorities and the State Authorities had submitted a report to the CISF Authorities by a communication dated 02.08.2024 that the petitioner along with 13 other candidates were found to be not residing at the mentioned addresses as per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar by his letter no. DSB/SLC/IX/2024/769-782 dated 24.07.2024. In the pleadings filed by the respondents there is no denial that the writ petitioner was posted in Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi at the relevant point in time during his period of probation when the verification was undertaken. It is submitted by Mr. CKS Baruah, learned CGC that in terms of the Rules 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 the writ petitioner was terminated from service. The Rules Page No.# 8/11 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 reads as follows: 26 (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. 8. A plain reading of the Rules 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 reflects that a candidate during the probation or its extension thereof, the appointing authority may without assigning any reasons terminate the services of a member of the force in the event of furnishing false or incorrect information. The Rule therefore empowers the authority to terminate the member of the force during the period of probation upon the said member of the force furnishing false or incorrect information. The report of the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar by communication dated 02.08.2024 based on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar by his letter no. DSB/SLC/IX/2024/769-782 dated 24.07.2024 reflecting that the petitioner was not a resident of the address as reflected in the official address which was furnished by the petitioner before the Authorities amounted to furnishing false and incorrect information and therefore, the petitioner’s appointment stood Page No.# 9/11 terminated. 9. The State respondents has not filed any affidavit, however, in deference to the earlier order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench the enquiry was undertaken and by communication dated 20.03.2026 furnished to the State Counsel by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar it is clear that from the report submitted by the Circle Officer Sadar Revenue Circle, Silchar that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the address mentioned therein and he is residing there. 10. Under such circumstances, it appears that earlier report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar dated 02.08.2024 and the report now furnished by communication dated 20.03.2026 are in conflict with each other. There is no explanation as to how the earlier report dated 02.08.2024 claimed to be issued and manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The earlier report was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar on the basis of the report given by the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar. The report of the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Cachar, Silchar is not before the Court. Nevertheless, in deference to the earlier order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 03.02.2026 a fresh enquiry was conducted by the District Authorities and the report has now been submitted before the Court Page No.# 10/11 which reveals that the petitioner is indeed the permanent resident of Dudhpatil Pt.-VI, PO-Haticherra-7, Dist.-Cachar, Assam and he resides in his own house. If that be so then the termination order dated 04.10.2024 which was passed on the basis of the earlier reported dated 02.08.2024 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar appears to be based on the incorrect information and as a consequence thereof it does not satisfy the rigour of the Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001. In view of the present report of the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar dated 20.03.2026 it cannot be said that the information in respect of the address of the petitioner furnished by the petitioner at the time of recruitment and appointment was false or incorrect information. 11. In that view of the matter, the matter is remanded back to the Commandant, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi to revisit the order of termination dated 04.10.2024 issued in respect of the writ petitioner. The authorities are also directed to take into consideration the subsequent report issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar by calling for the relevant records and upon proper examination if the address of the writ petitioner is found to be correct in terms of the particulars which were furnished at the time of selection and appointment then the termination order dated 04.10.2024 would be recalled and the petitioner will be reinstated in service with full service Page No.# 11/11 benefits including the pay benefits. In the absence of any communication being forwarded by the State Authorities to the CISF Authorities, this Court permits the CISF Authorities to call for relevant records from the State Authorities, more particularly, in respect of the report given by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar Silchar. Upon such request received from the CISF Authorities, the State Authorities will forthwith forward all the relevant records to the CISF Authorities for passing appropriate orders as directed by this Court. Let this entire exercise be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands also disposed of. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands merged. JUDGE Comparing Assistant