Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010286452025 2026:GAU-AS:963 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/287/2026 SANTOSH KUMAR CHAUHAN S/O UMA SHANKAR CHAUHAN, R/O.- VILLAGE- DOLANGBARI, P.S. BARLANGFER, DISTRICT- EAST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782447. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) HEADQUARTER BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI -110003. 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) HEADQUARTERS BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL NORTH EAST ZONE CISF GROUP HEADQUARTERS HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD Page No.# 2/5 GUWAHATI- 781029 ASSAM. 5:THE COMMANDANT CISF UNIT KOYLA BHAWAN DHANBAD JHARKHAND PIN- 826005. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER EAST KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782460. 7:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER EAST KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM PIN- 782460 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Sarmah, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Doley, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Sharma, CGC Mr. R. Dhar, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. B. Sharma, the learned CGC appears on bhelaf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. R. Dhar, the learned Page No.# 3/5 Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the termination order dated 31.07.2025 whereby the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the OBC Certificate Verification Report received from the Office of the District Commissioner, Karbi Anglong confirmed that the OBC certificate issued to the petitioner was fake. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the certificates issued to the petitioner as well as to the subsequent certificate dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Diphu whereby the OBC certificate issued to the petitioner was held to be proper. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that an appeal thereagainst was filed against the termination order on 18.10.2025 before the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) i.e. the respondent No. 3 but till date, the said appeal is pending. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration. Page No.# 4/5 5. The petitioner herein has already invoked the provision of Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and has accordingly filed an application before the respondent No. 3 challenging the termination order. It is the opinion of this Court that when such an application is filed before the Competent Authority, i.e. the respondent No. 3, it is incumbent upon that said authority to decide the said application as urgently as possible, more so, taking into account that the petitioner has been terminated from service. It is also the opinion of this Court that while an application is pending before the respondent No. 3 wherein the termination order has been put into challenge, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition thereby leading to duplicity of proceedings. 6. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The respondent No. 3 before whom the application had been filed under Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 is directed to dispose of the said application within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No. 3. In addition to that, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to file additional documents before the respondent No. 3 to clarify that the certificate which was issued to the petitioner was a genuine Page No.# 5/5 certificate. (ii) It is further observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner would be at liberty to again approach this Court subject to there being no other alternative and efficacious remedy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant