Police Removal Upheld for Dereliction of Duty Linked to Godhra Incident Timing; No Bias Found in Inquiry: Gujarat High Court - 2025-05-03

Gujarat High Court Upholds Removal of Police Constables for Dereliction of Duty on Day of Godhra Train Incident

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has dismissed petitions filed by nine police constables challenging their removal from service, finding that their dereliction of duty on February 27, 2002, the day of the tragic Godhra train burning incident, was proven and the punishment was not disproportionate. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D.Nanavati upheld the concurrent findings of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities.

Case Background

The petitioners, comprising Armed and Un-armed Police Constables of the Gujarat Railway Police's Mobile Squad, were assigned patrol duty on trains between Ahmedabad and Dahod from February 1 to February 27, 2002. On February 26, 2002, they travelled from Ahmedabad to Dahod as scheduled. Their assigned return journey was via the Sabarmati Express (9166 UP) from Dahod early on February 27, 2002.

However, upon reaching Dahod , the petitioners claimed the Sabarmati Express was running "indefinitely late." Instead of waiting, they boarded the Shanti Express back to Ahmedabad at around 4:45 AM, making an entry in the Dahod Railway Outpost register indicating they were departing by the assigned Sabarmati Express . Later that morning, the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was set ablaze near Godhra Railway Station, resulting in the deaths of 58 passengers.

Following the incident, the petitioners were suspended, charge-sheeted, and subjected to a departmental inquiry. The core charges included serious negligence and carelessness towards duty by abandoning their assigned train ( Sabarmati Express ), making a false entry, and consequently failing to be present on the train where the tragic incident occurred, thereby potentially hindering prevention or mitigation efforts. The disciplinary authority ordered their removal from service, which was upheld on appeal and revision.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Arguments (Led by Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta):

• The inquiry findings were perverse and based on no evidence, relying on surmises.
• The Inquiry Officer, Shri Noel Parmar , was biased as he was also an investigating officer in the Godhra criminal case (FIR No. 9 of 2002).
• Returning by an alternative train when the assigned train was late was a routine practice, supported by past instances documented in station diaries.
• They could not have prevented the pre-planned Godhra incident, being mostly unarmed and in plain clothes, and having no prior intelligence.
• The charge essentially amounted to negligence or false entry, for which removal from service was a disproportionately harsh punishment.

Respondents' Arguments (Led by Additional Advocate General Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah):

• The Sabarmati Express was a Category 'A' train (higher crime risk) requiring police presence; the duty was specific and mandatory.
• Petitioners abandoned their duty without seeking permission from superiors.
• They knowingly made a false entry in the Dahod station diary.
• Evidence (including the Station Master's statement) showed the train was late by approximately 6 hours, not "indefinitely late" (which typically implies over 20 hours delay and requires permission for alternatives).
• Their presence could have potentially reduced casualties, aided passengers, apprehended culprits, or provided critical information, even if the entire incident couldn't be averted.
• The disciplinary proceedings strictly followed rules and principles of natural justice; petitioners admitted no procedural lapses.
• The bias allegation against the Inquiry Officer was raised belatedly (only after the report), was unsubstantiated, and effectively waived by the petitioners' conduct during the inquiry. The IO was appointed by designation (Dy.S.P., Western Railway), not personally selected.
• Removal from service is a permissible punishment under Rule 3 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and is proportionate given the gravity of misconduct by members of a disciplined force.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Nanavati meticulously reviewed the case records, inquiry proceedings, and arguments. The Court highlighted several key points:

• Undisputed Facts: The petitioners were assigned duty on Sabarmati Express , they did not board it, they boarded Shanti Express instead without permission, they made a false entry stating they boarded Sabarmati Express , and the tragic incident occurred on the Sabarmati Express coach S-6 later that morning.
• Dereliction of Duty Proven: The excuse of the train being "indefinitely late" was rejected based on evidence, particularly the Station Master's statement indicating a delay of around 6 hours. Standard procedure required permission for changing trains, which was not sought. The false entry further compounded the misconduct.
• No Procedural Flaws: The Court found no violation of natural justice or procedural rules in the departmental inquiry. Petitioners were given opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
• Bias Allegation Rejected: The Court rejected the allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer Shri Noel Parmar , noting it was not raised during the inquiry. The petitioners themselves stated in their reply to the show-cause notice that they initially expected a favourable outcome from him. The Court applied the principle of waiver and found no concrete evidence of bias, emphasizing the distinction between departmental inquiry and criminal investigation.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated the established legal principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. Citing precedents like Om Kumar v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran , the Court emphasized it cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view on the quantum of punishment unless the findings are perverse or the punishment "shocks the conscience" (Wednesbury principles).
• Proportionality of Punishment: Considering the petitioners belonged to a disciplined police force entrusted with passenger safety on a high-risk train, the Court found the proven misconduct (gross negligence, dereliction of duty, false entry) serious enough to warrant the punishment of removal under the applicable service rules. The punishment was deemed not shockingly disproportionate. The Court observed: > "The petitioners herein having accepted that the petitioners have not performed their duties entrusted to them itself proves the case against the petitioners... The petitioners admittedly having been assigned such important duty, have casually thought it fit, not to travel by the assigned train..."

Final Decision

Finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities, the High Court dismissed both Special Civil Applications. The orders removing the petitioners from service stand confirmed. The judgment underscores the high standards of duty expected from police personnel and affirms the limited scope of judicial intervention in disciplinary punishments imposed by competent authorities following due process.