AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court upheld the removal of nine railway police constables from service. These constables were assigned to patrol the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002 from Dahod outpost, but they returned to Ahmedabad early by another train, as the Sabarmati Express was running late.
On that day, the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was torched near Godhra railway station by a rioting mob, killing 59 passengers, including karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. This incident sparked statewide communal violence for the next two months. The policemen were removed from service for dereliction of duty.
Nearly two decades after their removal, Justice V D Nanavati dismissed their pleas for reinstatement. The judge stated, “If the petitioners departed on the Sabarmati Express train itself to reach Ahmedabad, the incident that occurred at Godhra could have been prevented. The petitioners showed negligence and carelessness towards their duty.”
All the armed constables with the Gujarat Railway Police – 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. A departmental inquiry took place, and they were removed from service in November 2005 under Rule-3(2) of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Their appeal was also dismissed in 2008.
They moved the high court against the order of removal and submitted that they were assigned the duty of patrolling trains between Kalupur and Dahod (chalit chowky) railway stations in February 2002. 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. They argued that boarding an alternative train by the mobile police unit is a routine practice.
It was done earlier by the mobile units, and no disciplinary action was taken in this regard. They demanded reinstatement. A couple of the petitioners passed away, and their family members joined the litigation.
For the state govt, Additional Advocate General Manisha Lavkumar argued that the removal of these policemen from service was done after a proper inquiry. Moreover, she also submitted that these policemen made false entries in records at the Dahod railway outpost, claiming they boarded the Sabarmati Express, and it was proved.
After a prolonged hearing, Justice V D Nanavati dismissed the policemen’s petitions and mentioned in her order that they made bogus entries and boarded the Shanti Express from Dahod.
The judge noted that the Sabarmati Express belonged to the ‘A’ category train, in which the frequency of untoward incidents is high. An ‘A’ category train is required to be manned by at least three armed constables with rifles and cartridges. Other personnel 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 and travelled by the Shanti Express. The reasonings assigned by the competent authorities do not call for any interference,” the high court order reads.