'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 OfficerThe 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...

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

Malavika Prasad

Tags