In a major development in the Godhra Train Carnage, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of nine railway constables for dereliction of duty. These dismissed railway constables were “entrusted” to travel on Sabarmati Express but they took another train. Flagging this, the High Court observed that if they had departed in the train instead of taking another train, the 2002 Godhra Train Carnage incident could have been prevented.
Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, in a detailed 110-page verdict pronounced on April 24, held that the dismissed personnel were duty-bound to travel on the Sabarmati Express but instead took the Shanti Express. The court observed that had they been present on the assigned train, the tragic incident that led to the death of 58 passengers including women and children might have been averted or at least mitigated.
The constables had been assigned return duty from Dahod to Ahmedabad on the Sabarmati Express, a train categorized under the ‘A’ category, which requires heightened security due to frequent incidents. The court noted that the security protocol mandated the presence of armed personnel and officers in plain clothes to prevent untoward incidents. However, all nine constables three of whom were armed chose to board the Shanti Express instead, leaving the Sabarmati Express without any security presence.
The High Court emphasized that the petitioners made false entries in the railway station logbooks, claiming they were traveling on the Sabarmati Express. In reality, they departed on the Shanti Express, which left Dahod around 5:21 a.m., whereas the Sabarmati Express reached Godhra at approximately 7:35 a.m., where the fatal attack occurred. The court ruled that this constituted “derelict negligence and carelessness,” and held that the departmental inquiry and resulting dismissal orders were justified and in accordance with the law.
A significant aspect of the court’s reasoning was the finding that the misconduct had been proven through a full-fledged departmental inquiry, with charges concurrently upheld by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities. The court also rejected the petitioners’ arguments regarding the disproportionality of the punishment and allegations of bias against the inquiry officer. It noted that no objections were raised during the inquiry process and that the accusations of bias appeared only after adverse findings were delivered.
While investigating, the constables reportedly said that they would have become martyrs had they boarded the train, the Sabarmati Express. The court dismissed this argument stating that such statements from police personnel would be unacceptable and unprofessional. Rather, the court reiterated that police officers had to perform their duties even in high-risk situations. The court further stated that the absence of security for the passengers on the Sabarmati Express left them open to the non-availability of such the constables, which amounts to a serious dereliction of duty by the constables.
Therefore, while officials had no criminal case laid against them, their conduct was considered unbecoming of a member of the police service and hence justified their dismissal under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
