The court confirmed that a person in concurrent charge possesses the full authority to exercise statutory powers, and challenges to articles of charge based on vagueness or delay must consider the seriousness of the allegations.

ORDER :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 05.10.2020 in Application Nos.3058/2020, 3059/2020 and 3060/2020 (Annexure-D) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the petitioners’ challenge to articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 is rejected.

2. The petitioners are working as Surveyors in the Second respondent – Survey, Settlement & Land Records Department. Alleging certain misconduct, articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 (Annexure-A4) with identical charges were issued to the petitioners. Questioning the said articles of charge dated 03.08.2020 issued to the petitioners, individually approached the Tribunal in the above stated Applications urging several grounds including the ground of incompetence of the second respondent as on the date of issuance of articles of charge. The Tribunal under common impugned order dismissed the applications of the petitioners, against which, the present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for petitioners through video conference and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for petitioners would contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners that the second respondent-Commissioner, as on the date of issuance of articles of charge was not a regular holder of the post of Commissioner, but he was on concurrent charge holding the post of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records. As such, a person holding concurrent charge could not have issued charge memo, which is a statutory function. It is submitted that an officer holding concurrent charge only could discharge day-to-day duties and he could not have discharge statutory duties. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said contention.

5. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject matter of articles of charge relates to the year 2008-09, whereas the articles of charge is issued in the year 2020. As there is delay in initiating the enquiry, charge memo is liable to be quashed. Further, learned counsel would submit that the subject matter of the enquiry is with regard to phodi and mutation, against which, the concerned parties could appeal under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘1964 Act’). As the complainants had the appeal remedy, no enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioners.

6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the charges are vague and no particulars are furnished. As such, he prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing the articles of charge.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.R.Rajendra for respondents would submit that the charges against the petitioners are that, they have created bogus records to favor the private parties illegally, which has resulted in huge loss to the exchequer and further he would submit that they have not followed the procedure for re- building the missing records. Thus, he submits that the enquiry needs to be conducted against the petitioners to find out the truth and it is open for the petitioners to take defence which are available to them under the law, before the Enquiry Officer.

8. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the charge memo is issued by an officer holding concurrent charge of the post of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Rec