‘Godhra Incident Could’ve Been Averted’: HC Upholds Removal Of Constables Who Skipped Sabarmati Duty

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of nine police constables whose alleged negligence is believed to have contributed to the tragic 2002 Godhra train burning incident. These officers, responsible for patrolling the Sabarmati Express, had boarded a different train on the day of the incident, a decision the court concluded could have changed the course of history.

The officers were originally stationed at the Dahod outpost and assigned to patrol the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, from Dahod to Ahmedabad. The train was running behind schedule, and instead of waiting for it, the officers took the Shanti Express early that morning to return to Ahmedabad. 

Shortly afterward, the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was set ablaze near Godhra railway station, killing 59 passengers, most of whom were karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. The attack ignited a wave of communal violence across Gujarat, leading to widespread unrest over the following two months.

Nearly twenty years after their suspension and dismissal from service, the officers filed pleas seeking reinstatement. However, Justice V D Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court dismissed their petitions. 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.”

The nine dismissed officers: Gulabsinh Zala, Khumansinh Rathod, Nathabhai Dabhi, Vinodbhai Bijalbhai, Jabirhussain Sheikh, Rasikbhai Parmar, Koshorbhai Parmar, Kishorbhai Patni, and Punabhai Bariya, were suspended days after the incident and formally removed from duty following a departmental inquiry. Their initial appeals were rejected in 2008.

In their defense, the officers claimed that it was common practice for patrolling units to take alternate trains when delays occurred. They insisted they had acted according to precedent and pointed out that no disciplinary action had ever been taken in similar situations. They also argued that their original duty was between Kalupur and Dahod stations, and that they had no prior knowledge of the gravity of the unfolding situation.

However, the state government, represented by Additional Advocate General Manisha Lavkumar, presented a counterargument. She informed the court that not only had the officers violated duty protocols by abandoning the Sabarmati Express, but they also falsified official records at the Dahod outpost by claiming they had indeed boarded the assigned train. This act of making false entries further eroded their credibility and was used as substantial evidence in upholding their dismissal.

Justice Nanavati noted in the judgment that the Sabarmati Express was categorized as an ‘A’ category train, requiring heightened security due to increased risk. Such trains demand a team of armed constables equipped with rifles and other support gear. Given the critical nature of their assignment, the officers’ casual approach to duty was inexcusable.