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. 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 Records. The ‘concurrent charge’ would mean that a person holding concurrent charge is as good as holding the charge of the said post substantively. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, for the following reasons: Normally, articles of charge would not give cause of action to challenge before the Court or Tribunal. The Court or Tribunal could interfere with articles of charge, if it is shown that it is issued by an incompetent authority or if one establishes the malafide on the part of the authority or that it is so vague that no one could understand the charge or if it is established that the authority has exercised arbitrary power. 10. The Court or Tribunal could interfere with articles of charge, if it is shown that it is issued by an incompetent authority or if one establishes the malafide on the part of the authority or that it is so vague that no one could understand the charge or if it is established that the authority has exercised arbitrary power. 10. In the instant case, charge memo is challenged on the ground that as on the date of issuance of articles of charge, the second respondent had no authority to issue articles of charge, since the holder of the post of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records was on concurrent charge. Annexure-A5, notification dated 30.05.2020 indicates that Sri.K.P.Mohan Raj, (IAS) Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru was placed in the post of concurrent charge of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Bengaluru and the articles of charge was issued on 03.08.2020. 11. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the Commissioner was holding the post of concurrent charge, he could not have exercised the statutory power to issue articles of charge under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). It is settled position of law that an in-charge officer cannot exercise statutory powers and he could only carryout day-to-day routine administrative function. However, it is not so in respect of an officer holding the concurrent charge. 12. Dictionary meaning of ‘concurrent’ as found in Blacks Law Dictionary is “having the same authority; acting in conjunction”. A person holding concurrent charge is as good as holding the charge substantively or regularly. A person holding the concurrent charge could exercise all the powers vested with the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, as he is considered as holder of the said post substantively/regularly. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the second respondent held the post in substantive capacity and can exercise statutory powers. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is delay in initiating the enquiry, as the subject matter relates to the year 2008-09, whereas the articles of charge was issued in August- 2020. A perusal of charge Nos.1 and 2, it is seen that the alleged charge against the petitioners is creation of bogus records to favour private parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is delay in initiating the enquiry, as the subject matter relates to the year 2008-09, whereas the articles of charge was issued in August- 2020. A perusal of charge Nos.1 and 2, it is seen that the alleged charge against the petitioners is creation of bogus records to favour private parties. The petitioners are still in service and the question of delay would depend on the nature and gravity of the charge. When the allegations are serious and when the allegations are causing loss to the State, the Court should normally be slow in interfering with the articles of charge. 14. Nextly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the charges are vague. A perusal of the articles of charge, imputation of charge, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charges are vague. The charge discloses every particulars and articles of charge would also indicate that the documents on which the charges are to be proved and it also provides list of witnesses. 15. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since 1964 Act provides for appeal in respect of phodi and mutation, there was no occasion for issuance of articles of charge against the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is not only with regard to phodi and change of mutation, but it is with regard to creation of bogus records to favour private individuals. In the said circumstances, the said contention cannot be appreciated. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 16. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands rejected.