After hearing the matter petitioner Inspector of Police, EOW, Jabalpur raising his enquiry, single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, has directed to disciplinary authority that is, Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur to conclude the pending enquiry within a period of three months in accordance with the law. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed off.

By the instant petition filed the petitioner Arvind Kumar Dubey, Inspector of Police, EOW, Jabalpur who was raising his grievance in respect of the enquiry which was started in pursuance to a charge-sheet issued to him somewhere in the year 2018, but not concluded so far. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending enquiry was causing prejudice to the petitioner and because of that, he was being deprived from getting benefits for which he was otherwise entitled. Therefore, he sought that the respondent authority may be directed to decide the pending enquiry within a stipulated period.

Keeping an enquiry pending for a long itself would cause prejudice to an employee which was impermissible under the law too. Despite that if enquiry was pending and not concluded by way of abundant caution, then the disciplinary authority was to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the court disposed this petition directing disciplinary authority/respondent SP, Narsinghpur to conclude the pending enquiry within a period of three months in accordance with law, the single bench said in the order.

Damoh Collector told to settle matter within 60 days Justice Nandita Dubey has directed Damoh Collector to decide the aforesaid pending representation of the petitioner before taking any coercive action against them. It is expected that the Collector will give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also give them time to file the related documents before taking any coercive action, and pass a detailed speaking order in this regard within a period of sixty days. For a period of sixty days or till the aforesaid representation is decided, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners. However, it is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case. The petitioners Prashant Jain and another have filed this petition aggrieved by the oral threat said to have been given by Tehsildar-Patharia, District-Damoh on April 13, 2022 asking them to remove the construction from the land else it will be bulldozed. The contention of counsel for the

(Contd on page 2)