'2002 Godhra Train Burning Could Have Been Prevented': Gujarat HC Upholds Dismissal Of 9 Railway Constables For Dereliction Of Duty

Upholding the dismissal of nine railway constables who were "entrusted" to travel on Sabarmati Express, the Gujarat High Court observed that if they had departed in the train instead of taking another train, the 2002 Godhra Train Burning incident could have been prevented. 

In doing so the court observed that the petitioners had made bogus entries in the train register and had shown "derelict negligence and carelessness towards their duty". In a 110 page order pronounced on April 24, Justice Vaibhavi D Nanavati held:

"It is not in dispute that the petitioners were assigned the duty to return by Sabarmati Express, however, while making the note to travel by Sabarmati Express, petitioners travelled by Shanti Express...If, the petitioners had departed in Sabarmati express train itself to reach Ahmedabad, the incident that have occurred at Godhra could have been prevented. The petitioners derelict negligence and carelessness towards their duty. The said charges stands proved".

The court observed that the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal which is upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities by reasoned findings. It further said,

"The petitioners were entrusted the duty in Sabarmati Express train. From the record, it emerges that the train belonged to 'A' category. A Category are such trains where frequency of untoward incidents like chain snatching, altercations, etc. is high...instructions which were issued to the concerned Police Inspector of the concerned Railway Station, were required to be implemented in every train falling in A Category, to ensure that at least 3 Armed Personnel with rifles and cartridges must be present. The rest of the ASIs are provided with sticks and ropes. Additionally, Police Officers in plain clothes, were also required to patrol the train. The petitioners admittedly having been assigned such important duty, have casually thought it fit, not to travel by the assigned train". 

Train passengers were without security 

The court said that as per the record it that at the time when the Sabarmati express went from Dahod to Godhra, the S-6 compartment was without any police personnel, i.e. all the 9 police personnel chose to travel by Shanti Express, though Sabarmati train was late by only 6 hours. The passengers were without any police personnel, on such train.

"The aforesaid results in negligence as also misconduct on the part of the petitioners in dereliction of their duties. The charges levelled against the petitioners are proved concurrently, with full-fledged departmental inquiry, which is also not in dispute. The competent authorities have acted in bona-fide manner. There appears to be no misuse of jurisdiction on the face of record and in accordance with the constitutional requirement of satisfying the principles of fairness as provided in Article-311(2) of the Constitution of India," the court said. 

The court also noted that during the hearing it was pointed out that the petitioners in the course of inquiry had submitted that they "would have become martyr, if they had boarded the train".

To this the court said, "The petitioners herein are belonging to the police force and such statement from the police personnel is such that the same is rightly not accepted by the disciplinary authority". 

No bias proved against Presiding Officer

The court also dismissed the petitioners' contention levelling bias against the presiding officer who conducted the departmental inquiry and observed that the petitioners never objected to the officer's appointment. The court said that the petitioners appeared before the officer, cooperated in the proceedings and it is only after the inquiry was over that the petitioners raised objections for the first time against the officer before the disciplinary authority.

The court referred to the petitioners reply to the show cause notice and observed that the petitioners never alleged bias against the appointment of the earlier inquiry officer. It said:

"Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that, at the first instance, Shri K.C. Bava, Deputy Superintendentof Police, Western Railway, Vadodara was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Upon Shri Bava, having been superannuated from service, Shri Noel Parmar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Further, no criminal proceedings are initiated against the petitioners. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel alleged personal bias against the P.O. It is apposite to discuss the factors which may give rise to personal bias. The person judging may be a relative or a friend or a business associate of a party, there may be a personal grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against such party. Resultantly, there is a likelihood that a Judge may be biased towards one party or prejudiced towards the other. In the facts of the present case, as held by the competent Authorities, dealing with the said allegation of the bias, in absence of any documents/proof on record to prove the alleged Bias, such contention is negatived". 

Petitioners made false entries in register

The court rejected the petitioners contention that the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the allegation of misconduct, finding it in consonance with the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. 

On the petitioners contention that they had no information, knowledge or intimation that Sabarmati express, the court said:

"In the opinion of this Court, it is not in dispute that, the petitioners themselves have accepted that the petitioners have made false entry at Dahod Railway Station. The petitioners were allotted duty on Sabarmati Express train, however, boarded Shanti Express. The petitioners thought it fit not to ratify such entry or to inform the higher officers. The petitioners herein are members of the police force and are expected to act in accordance with the duty so assigned to them and having failed to do so, the competent authority imposed the punishment upon the petitioners of "removal from service".

Background

On facts the court noted that the nine petitioners–Gulabsinh Zala, Khumansinh Rathod, Nathabhai Dabhi, Vinodbhai Bijalbhai, Jabirhussain Sheikh, Rasikbhai Parmar, Koshorbhai Parmar, Kishorbhai Patni, and Punabhai Bariya–were allotted patrolling duty between Rajkot Bhopal Express departing from Ahmedabad to Dahod, and returning by the Sabarmati Express from Dahod to Ahmedabad. Three petitioners were Armed Constables with rifles and cartridges and six others were in plain clothes.

On February 26, 2002 the petitioners boarded the Rajkot-Bhopal Express from Ahmedabad Railway Station at 18:35 pm.On February 27, 2002, the petitioners reached Dahod Railway Station at 00:35 hours in Rajkot - Bhopal Express. On reaching Dahod Station, the petitioners certified necessary entry about the train having arrived safely and noted it as 'Surakshit' in the station dairy.

The Petitioners also made an entry in the Railway Register at the Railway Out Post, Dahod that they are departing by the Sabarmati Express (Up). There was no entry in the Dahod Register at Dahod Railway Station of departing in Shanti Express, the court noted. Petitioners boarded Shanti Express from Dahod to Ahmedabad at 5:21am. After reaching Ahmedabad, the Petitioners made an entry in the Railway Station diary at 10:05 am of Shanti Express train having been reached Ahmedabad 'safely'. No reason or justification for boarding another train than the one assigned on duty was given.

Sabarmati Express reached Godhra railway station at 07:35 am. The unfortunate incident of chain pulling, stone pelting and setting ablaze coach-S6 of the train took place at Godhra Railway Station wherein 58 people including women and children lost their lives, the court noted.

The petitioners were placed under suspension on March 1, 2002 District Superintendent of Police, Western Railway. Preliminary inquiry in April 2002 pointed to dereliction  by petitioners in boarding Shanti Express instead of Sabarmati Express. In January 2003 order of commencing departmental enquiry was passed.

Notably the enquiry officer who while deciding among other issues, in his report said, "I have investigated the offence. It was a pre-planned conspiracy. In the staff of moving squad were present on the train, they could have known about the chain-pulling and and as they were on the train, the guard or the engine-driver could have required support, i.e. Bandobast, by communicating through walkie-talkie...Even if the offense could not be prevented, it would have surely prevented such a large number of casualties. Thus, they are partly responsible. If the conspiracy had been successful even if they were present, at least such a large scale damage to the lives and properties might have been prevented. Moreover, the staff of the squad could have nabbed one or two of the accused, immediately". 

In 2005 Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of removal for grave dereliction of duty and gross negligence.

After consider their reply, the authority–Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara in October 2005 passed an order removing the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal which was rejected by the Additional DGP, CID and railways. Ultimately the Chief Secretary in 2008 heard the petitioners, framed 13 issues, returned detailed finding on each of those issues and upheld the findings and the consequential order passed by the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority.

Case title: GULABSINH DEVUSINH JHALA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 64