The Gujarat High Court has upheld the termination of services of nine Government Railway Police personnel who were supposed to man Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, the day it was set ablaze by a mob, but they returned here as the train was running late.
In her order dated April 24, Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati noted the train burning incident near Godhra station "could have been prevented" if these policemen had boarded Sabarmati Express, which was assigned to them, instead of taking another train and returning to Ahmedabad.
"The petitioners (policemen) made bogus entries in the register and returned to Ahmedabad by Shanti Express. If the petitioners had departed in 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," said the Judge while rejecting their pleas for reinstatement.
These cops boarded Shanti Express to return to Ahmedabad from Dahod on the fateful day, instead of joining their duty on Sabarmati Express, after learning the latter was running late.
At least 59 passengers travelling in Sabarmati Express were killed when a mob set the S6 coach on fire near Godhra station at around 7:40 am on February 27, 2002. Most of the deceased were 'karsevaks' (volunteers) who were returning from Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.
As per case details, nine personnel of the Government Railway Police, who were part of the 'mobile squad' of the GRP, were given the duty to board Sabarmati Express from Dahod station upon its arrival and conduct patrolling in the train till it reaches Ahmedabad.
These nine GRP personnel -- three armed constables and six unarmed policemen -- reached Dahod in the early hours of February 27 by Rajkot-Bhopal Express. Though they were supposed to board Sabarmati Express as assigned to them, they got into Shanti Express upon learning the former was running "indefinitely late", according to the case details.
When these personnel reached Ahmedabad at around 10:05 am, they learnt that the S6 coach of Sabarmati Express had been torched by a mob near Godhra station.
Following an inquiry, these nine personnel were first suspended and then "removed from service" by the Gujarat government in 2005 for negligence in performing their duties. They later challenged the government order in the High Court.
The petitioners urged the HC to quash the termination order and direct the state government to reinstate them in service. During the hearing, the petitioners' lawyer submitted that it is a normal practice for GRP personnel to switch trains if the assigned train is running indefinitely late.
However, the government defended its action, saying apart from not boarding their assigned train, they also made a false entry at Dahod station Outpost claiming they are departing by Sabarmati Express, giving a wrong signal to the control room that the train is secured.
Moreover, their presence on Sabarmati Express was necessary for it being a 'Category A' train, having a higher propensity for crimes such as unnecessary chain pulling, the order stated. The court further noted that argument by the sacked cops, accepting that they have not performed duties entrusted to them, proves the case against the petitioners.
"The petitioners were entrusted with 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 pulling, altercations, etc. is high" the HC order noted. Quoting a government order, the HC stated that every train falling in A Category must have at least "three Armed Personnel with rifles and cartridges and the rest of the policemen are provided with sticks and ropes".
"The petitioners admittedly having been assigned such important duty, have casually thought it fit, not to travel by the assigned train and travelled by Shanti Express" said the order. The reasonings assigned by the competent authorities (government) do not call for any interference. This court deems it fit not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the petitions fail and are dismissed," Justice Nanavati said in the order.
Source Name : Economic Times