‘Could have averted ’02 Godhra arson’: Guj HC upholds sacking of 9 constables
The court dismissed their petitions challenging their dismissal, ruling that their absence from the train due to negligence contributed to the tragedy.
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the sacking of nine police constables for dereliction of duty during the 2002 Godhra train attack, in which 58 passengers were burned alive in the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express.
The court dismissed their petitions challenging their dismissal, ruling that their absence from the train due to negligence contributed to the tragedy.
The incident occurred on February 27, 2002, when a mob set fire to the coach near Godhra railway station, triggering widespread riots across Gujarat.
The petitioners, comprising four unarmed constables and five armed constables, were part of the Gujarat Railway Police’s Mobile Squad. Their duty on February 26–27, 2002, involved patrolling the Rajkot-Bhopal Express from Ahmedabad to Dahod and returning via the Sabarmati Express. However, upon reaching Dahod, they learned that the Sabarmati Express was delayed. Instead of waiting, they boarded the Shanti Express back to Ahmedabad, falsely recording their departure on the Sabarmati Express in the station diary. The S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burned at Godhra station the next morning. The 110 page order, pronounced on April 24 was put on the website on Friday.
Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, in her judgment, stated, “The petitioners made bogus entries in the register and return to Ahmedabad 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.”
{{/usCountry}}Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, in her judgment, stated, “The petitioners made bogus entries in the register and return to Ahmedabad 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.”
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the petitioners had shown dereliction, negligence, and carelessness in the discharge of their duties. It noted that the charges against them were proven, and the order of removal was passed on that basis. However, it was also clarified that the petitioners were not accused of involvement in any criminal conspiracy.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the petitioners had shown dereliction, negligence, and carelessness in the discharge of their duties. It noted that the charges against them were proven, and the order of removal was passed on that basis. However, it was also clarified that the petitioners were not accused of involvement in any criminal conspiracy.
{{/usCountry}}The constables, Gulabsinh Zala, Khumansinh Rathod, Nathabhai Dabhi, Vinodbhai Bijalbhai, Jabirhussain Sheikh, Rasikbhai Parmar, Koshorbhai Parmar, Kishorbhai Patni, and Punabhai Bariya, were suspended on March 1, 2002, and later served with a charge sheet for negligence and dereliction of duty.
{{/usCountry}}The constables, Gulabsinh Zala, Khumansinh Rathod, Nathabhai Dabhi, Vinodbhai Bijalbhai, Jabirhussain Sheikh, Rasikbhai Parmar, Koshorbhai Parmar, Kishorbhai Patni, and Punabhai Bariya, were suspended on March 1, 2002, and later served with a charge sheet for negligence and dereliction of duty.
{{/usCountry}}After a departmental inquiry, they were removed from service in 2005, a decision upheld by appellate and revisional authorities. Their petitions challenging these orders were consolidated and heard by the High Court.
They reached Dahod in the Rajkot-Bhopal Express seven minutes past midnight on February 27, 2002, and were to board the Sabarmati Express at 12:38 am from Dahod for Ahmedabad. However, the Sabarmati Express was delayed, and they boarded the Shanti Express at 4:45 am and returned to Ahmedabad. Upon arriving in Ahmedabad, they learned about the incident of the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express.
The constables argued that their absence from the Sabarmati Express did not constitute misconduct, as they had no prior knowledge of the attack. They claimed it was routine practice to take alternative trains when delays occurred. They demanded reinstatement. A couple of petitioners passed away, and their family members joined the litigation.
The state government, represented by Additional Advocate General Manisha Lavkumar Shah, asserted that the constables’ duty was critical to passenger safety. Their failure to board the assigned train left passengers vulnerable, and their false entries in the station diary exacerbated the lapse, she argued. The state emphasized that the inquiry was conducted fairly, with all procedural safeguards, and the punishment was justified given the severity of their negligence.
