IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19136 OF 2011 Date:08.07. 2011 Between:- K.Guru Murthy .. Petitioner And Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19136 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned suspension order, dated 28.01.2011, and the extended order of suspension, dated 28.04.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the said order of suspension pending enquiry of the accidental incident, dated 26.01.2011, is unjust and unwarranted, and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner joined in service as Khalasi in Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 01.08.1981 and later, promoted as Welder Grade III on Adhoc basis in 1999 and has been working as such. On 26.01.2011, one A.L.N.Murthy, Assistant Engineer (Mech.) engaged the petitioner, one L.Chittibabu and one K.Gurunatha Rao, Fitter Grade II to weld a base plat on S-6 Conveyor gallery tail end for fixing a new pull cord switch. At about 11 a.m., all three of them went to the said point where conveyor belt has been running and after taking all care and precautions, the petitioner took the welding holder to required location and checked the power supply with the welding stick and then, the fibre sheet was caught fire due to the spark. The fire was put off by using leather gloves on front side but the fire on the back side could not be controlled as the conveyor belt was running at a height of about 40 feet from ground level. The fire was put off with the help of fire fighter. The said incident is purely an accidental one. In pursuance of the said incident, the respondent passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation, dated 29.01.2011, requesting him to revoke the order of suspension but in vain. Again, on 28.04.2011, the respondent extended the period of suspension for a further period of three months by suspension review committee proceedings, dated 20.04.2011. A charge memo was issued on 02.02.2011 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.02.2011 denying the allegations of misconduct or negligence alleged against him and the enquiry is pending. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the fire accident and that the persons, who were present along with the petitioner, have taken all necessary precautions so that no fire accident would be occurred and that it is only an accidental incident. Therefore, suspending the petitioner on this ground is unsustainable and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry or contemplation of enquiry. It is for the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision. Unless mala fides are attributed to the person, who placed the petitioner under suspension, or the person, who passed the impugned order, lacks jurisdiction, this Court would not interfere with the same. The case of the petitioner does not fall under anyone of the two categories as stated above. No doubt, the persons, who were present at the time of fire accident, have specifically stated that they have taken all precautionary measures so as to prevent any untoward incident, but at the same time, it has to be taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he was negligently carrying on the welding work near inflammable material- fibre sheet, which resulted in burning of the fibre sheet about 40 meters roofing and caused disruption of ship loading operations from 11.25 Hrs. to 11.45 Hrs. Therefore, he was placed under suspension. Considering the prima facie allegations, the disciplinary authority rightly placed him under suspension. That order needs no interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Enquiry Officer shall complete the enquiry within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the disciplinary authority has to take appropriate decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 08th July, 2011. Note:- Furnish C.C. by one week. B/O. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.19136 OF 2011 Date:08.07.2011 AMD