In short. A change of inquiry officer can be asked for when you have a real reason to fear that the officer hearing your departmental inquiry is biased. You file a written bias petition; under a DoPT instruction of 1972 the inquiry is paused and the petition goes to the disciplinary authority, which the CVC in 2024 asked to decide, preferably within 30 days. It is for any central employee in a Rule 14 inquiry. Next step: write down the facts that show bias, with dates and sources, and leave out complaints about rulings you simply disagree with.
Is this your situation?
- The inquiry officer was part of the fact-finding team or preliminary inquiry that led to your chargesheet.
- He has said at a sitting, or to others, that the charges are obviously true or that you will be punished anyway.
- He is a close relative, friend or business associate of the complainant, or has a running dispute with you.
- He keeps meeting the presenting officer alone, or material reaches him that you never see.
- He refuses every request you make in a line, and the order sheets leave out your objections.
- You want to know who decides a bias petition, whether the inquiry stops meanwhile, and what happens if it is refused.
In short
- Bias is about a fair-minded observer's fear, not your own anger. The question is whether a reasonable person, knowing the facts, would think the inquiry officer may not be impartial.
- Facts, not adjectives. A petition that lists who said what, on which date, in front of whom, is taken seriously; a petition full of words like 'hostile' and 'prejudiced' is not.
- The inquiry pauses while the petition is decided. Under a DoPT instruction of 1972, the inquiry officer stops and sends the petition to the competent authority, which the CVC has asked to decide within about 30 days.
- A refusal is not appealable on its own. Rule 22 of the CCS (CCA) Rules bars appeals against orders in the course of an inquiry, so the point is raised again after the report or penalty.
- Keep attending. Walking out while the petition is pending, or after it is rejected, risks an ex parte inquiry that is much harder to undo.
Change of inquiry officer: can you ask, and who decides?
Yes, you can ask, and the request is not rare. Rule 14 itself does not have a clause on changing the inquiry officer for bias, but government instructions have covered it since 1972. A DoPT office memorandum of 9 November 1972 says that when a charged employee files an application alleging bias against the inquiring authority, the proceedings should be stayed and the application, with relevant material, sent to the appropriate authority for orders.
In February 2024, the Central Vigilance Commission issued Circular No. 03/02/24 because bias petitions were being used to stall inquiries for months. It repeated the 1972 instruction, asked competent authorities to decide such petitions quickly, preferably within 30 days, while following natural justice, and commended guidelines that the Railway Board had issued in December 2022 for other organisations to adopt.
In practice the petition is decided by the disciplinary authority that appointed the inquiry officer. If the bias alleged is the disciplinary authority's own, for instance because it was the complainant, the petition should go to the authority above it. Our guide on when the complainant is also the disciplinary authority deals with that problem in more detail.
The decision is either to keep the inquiry officer or to appoint another. A transfer of inquiry to a different officer does not restart the case from the beginning; what happens to the evidence already recorded is explained further below.
Reasonable apprehension of bias: the test that is actually applied
You do not have to prove that the inquiry officer is in fact biased. That would be nearly impossible. The courts ask a different question: would a reasonable person, aware of the facts, fear that the officer might not decide fairly? In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court said the test is whether there is a reasonable ground for the person affected to believe that he will not get a fair decision, judged from the point of view of a reasonable person, not the officer's own view of his fairness.
Older decisions point the same way. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), a selection was set aside because a member of the selection board was himself a candidate, even though he did not take part when his own name came up. In Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School (1993), a disciplinary inquiry failed because one member of the inquiry committee had earlier appeared as a witness against the employee.
The idea that links these cases is simple. Someone who has already taken a position on the facts, or has a personal interest in the result, should not be the person finding those facts. Inquiry officer prejudice of this kind is a ground for change even if the officer is honest and believes he can be fair.
What the test does not cover is a ruling you dislike. An inquiry officer who refuses a document or an adjournment has made a decision, not shown bias. Unless the refusals reveal a closed mind, for instance a pattern of unreasoned rejections combined with remarks about the merits, they are matters for your later representation and appeal.
Grounds that usually succeed, and grounds that usually fail
| Ground | What it looks like in practice | How it is usually treated |
|---|---|---|
| Earlier role in the case | The inquiry officer conducted the preliminary inquiry, sat on the fact-finding committee, or forwarded the complaint with comments | Strong; instructions discourage appointing anyone who handled the case earlier |
| Witness to the events | He was present at the incident, or his statement is among the department's documents | Strong; he cannot judge evidence he is part of |
| Personal relationship or interest | Close relative or friend of the complainant, business link, a pending dispute or complaint between him and you | Strong if shown with facts, not suspicion |
| Prejudgement | Remarks at a sitting or elsewhere that the charges are proved or that you will be punished | Strong if recorded or witnessed; a petition should name who heard it |
| One-sided contact | Meetings or calls with the presenting officer or the complainant about the merits without you | Often succeeds if specific dates or documents can be given |
| Adverse rulings | Refusal of documents, witnesses or adjournments | Usually fails on its own; raise it later as a procedural ground |
| Rank or seniority | He is junior to you, or from your rival cadre | Usually fails unless linked to a real conflict |
| General hostility | He seems unfriendly or speaks sharply | Usually fails without more |
The instructions and rules involved
DoPT OM No. 39/40/70-Ests(A), 9 November 1972
When a government servant files an application alleging bias against the inquiring authority, the proceedings are to be stayed and the application, with the relevant material, sent to the appropriate authority to decide.
CVC Circular No. 03/02/24, 19 February 2024
Restates the 1972 instruction, asks competent authorities to dispose of bias petitions quickly, preferably within 30 days, observing natural justice, and circulates the Railway Board's guidelines of 27 December 2022 for adoption by other organisations with suitable changes.
Rule 22, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
No appeal lies against an order of an interlocutory nature or a step-in-aid of the final disposal of disciplinary proceedings, other than a suspension order, or against an order passed by an inquiring authority in the course of an inquiry. The decision on a bias petition is treated as falling within this bar.
Rule 14(22), CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
When one inquiring authority is replaced by another after some evidence has been recorded, the successor may act on the evidence already recorded, or partly recorded and partly its own, and may recall and examine any witness if it considers this necessary in the interests of justice.
Sections 19 and 20, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
An Original Application to the Central Administrative Tribunal lies against an order that aggrieves you, ordinarily after exhausting departmental remedies. The Tribunal rarely interferes with an inquiry midway, but can do so in exceptional cases.
Filing a bias petition in your inquiry, step by step
The petition is short, factual and addressed to the right authority. Here is the order of work.
Collect the facts
Write down each event that makes you fear bias: the date, what was said or done, who was present, and where it is recorded. Separate what you saw yourself from what someone told you; hearsay needs the name of the person who told you and should be backed by that person if possible.
Check the appointment order and the file
Find out whether the inquiry officer's name appears anywhere in the preliminary inquiry, the complaint, the listed documents or the witness statements. An earlier role on paper is the strongest proof you can have.
Address it to the right authority
Address the petition to the disciplinary authority that appointed the inquiry officer. Give a copy to the inquiry officer at the next sitting and ask that its filing be recorded in the order sheet, so that the stay under the 1972 instruction takes effect.
Keep it to two or three pages
Open with the request: that the inquiry officer be replaced. Then set out the facts in numbered paragraphs. End by asking for a decision with reasons and for a personal hearing if the authority thinks it useful. Attach the supporting papers.
Do not mix in your defence
Arguments that the charges are false do not belong here. They make the petition look like an attempt to argue the case before a friendlier listener.
Follow up in writing
If nothing is heard in about a month, send a short reminder referring to the CVC's 30-day guidance. Keep proof of every letter.
Advocate B.K. Singh's first tip on bias petitions: after drafting, strike out every adjective and see whether the petition still makes the point. If the facts alone do not show a reason for fear, the petition is not ready, and filing it may only harden attitudes against you.
A made-up example: a teacher, a fact-finding committee and a new inquiry officer
Here's a made-up example. Suresh, 46, is a PGT (Chemistry) in a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Bhopal. He is charged with misusing laboratory funds. The chargesheet followed a fact-finding report by a three-member committee. When the inquiry officer is named, Suresh sees that she is the principal of another Vidyalaya in the city, and he remembers her name from somewhere.
He checks his copy of the listed documents. The fact-finding report, listed as document 2, is signed by her as one of the three members, with a conclusion that the funds were misused. Suresh files a two-page petition with the disciplinary authority, attaching that page, and gives a copy to the inquiry officer at the next sitting. She records it and adjourns the inquiry.
Five weeks later the disciplinary authority appoints another principal as inquiry officer, recording that the earlier appointee had already expressed a view on the facts. The new inquiry officer reads the evidence already recorded from one witness and, on Suresh's request, recalls that witness for further cross-examination under Rule 14(22).
Not every petition ends this way, and this one worked because the earlier role was on paper. Had Suresh's only complaint been that the inquiry officer refused him an adjournment, the petition would almost certainly have failed and cost him five weeks.
What happens to the inquiry while the petition is pending
Under the 1972 instruction, the inquiry should stop once the petition is filed and noted. In practice some inquiry officers continue with routine matters, such as inspection of documents, while the petition is pending. If evidence is taken in that period over your objection, record the objection.
The pause has a cost, and you should weigh it. If you are under suspension, the review of your subsistence allowance under FR 53 depends partly on whether delay in the proceedings is attributable to you. A well-founded petition decided in a month will not count against you much; a weak one that holds things up for three months may. See when subsistence allowance can be raised from 50 to 75 per cent.
If you are close to retirement, a long pause can also mean the inquiry continues after you retire under the pension rules, with your pension and gratuity held up. That is not a reason to tolerate real bias, but it is a reason to file a strong petition promptly rather than a weak one late.
During the pause, prepare. Finish your notes on the department's evidence and draft your cross-examination plan; our guide on cross-examining a department witness can help. The time is lost only if you do nothing with it.
Transfer of inquiry without a fight: quieter routes
Not every concern needs a formal bias petition. Where the problem is an earlier role on paper, some inquiry officers step aside on their own once it is pointed out. A short, polite letter to the inquiry officer, copied to the disciplinary authority, noting the earlier role and asking whether he would prefer to recuse, sometimes ends the matter within days and without the bitterness a petition can cause.
Where the worry is about local influence, for instance the inquiry officer works under the same controlling officer as the complainant, you can ask the disciplinary authority to appoint someone from another division or office. Put it as a request for an officer with no connection to the unit, not as an accusation. Departments often agree, because it protects the inquiry from later challenge.
If a recusal letter or a request of this kind is refused, nothing is lost: you can still file a full bias petition on the same facts. But the refusal itself, and the date of your earlier letter, then become part of your record, showing you raised the issue early and reasonably.
These quieter routes do not suit every case. Where the inquiry officer has made remarks showing he has decided the matter, a formal petition is the right step, filed promptly.
Papers to attach to the petition
Proof of an earlier role or interest
- Pages of the preliminary inquiry or fact-finding report bearing the inquiry officer's name
- Any letter in which he forwarded or commented on the complaint
- His statement, if he gave one, from the listed documents
- Documents showing a relationship or dispute, such as a court case or a complaint between him and you
Proof of conduct at the inquiry
- Daily order sheets of the relevant sittings
- Your letters objecting at the time, with proof of delivery
- A short written account from anyone who heard a remark, signed and dated
- Copies of documents the inquiry officer received from the presenting officer that you were not given
Basic papers
- The order appointing the inquiry officer
- The chargesheet and your written statement of defence
- Proof that a copy of the petition was handed to the inquiry officer
If the petition is rejected
A rejection is not the end of the point. Rule 22 means you cannot appeal against it by itself, but you can and should raise it again in your representation on the inquiry report, in any appeal against penalty under Rule 23, and in an application to the Tribunal if the matter goes that far. Ask for the rejection order in writing with reasons; a bare 'rejected' is itself a weakness in the department's record.
Keep attending the inquiry, and keep taking part fully. Some employees, angry at the rejection, refuse to cross-examine or to lead evidence. That only weakens the record they will later depend on. Say on record at the next sitting that you are participating under protest because your bias petition was rejected, and then do your best on the merits.
Going straight to the Central Administrative Tribunal against a rejection is possible but seldom successful. The Tribunal usually prefers to see the whole inquiry before deciding whether it was fair. It may step in early where the bias is plain on the face of the record, such as an inquiry officer who is also the complainant or a listed witness. If you think your case is of that kind, take advice on an application with a prayer for an interim stay of the inquiry.
When the penalty stage comes, the page on appealing a penalty order within 45 days explains how to carry the bias ground forward.
Timeline and cost of a bias petition
| Step | Typical time | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting and filing the petition | Within days of learning the facts; filing late weakens it | No fee |
| Inquiry paused and petition forwarded | At the next sitting after filing | No fee |
| Decision by the competent authority | CVC guidance: preferably within 30 days; in practice 1 to 3 months | No fee |
| New inquiry officer appointed, if allowed | 2 to 6 weeks after the decision | No fee |
| Resumption and any recall of witnesses | Depends on how much evidence was recorded before the change | No fee |
| Raising the ground after a penalty | Representation on report within 15 days; appeal within 45 days; Original Application generally within one year of the final order | Departmental stages have no fee; the CAT application fee is a small fixed sum (Rs 50 under Rule 7 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules; check the current figure) |
Inquiry officer prejudice that shows up only in the report
Sometimes there is no warning during the hearings, and the bias appears only when the report arrives. Typical signs: the report copies whole paragraphs from the presenting officer's brief, ignores the defence evidence without a word, relies on documents never proved, or reaches findings on matters not in the charges.
At that point a petition for change of inquiry officer is too late; the inquiry is over. The remedy is your representation on the inquiry report, which you have 15 days to file. List each sign of prejudice specifically, with page references, and ask the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings or to remit the case for a fresh inquiry. Our guide on what to put in the representation on the inquiry report explains the structure.
The disciplinary authority is not bound by the report. It can disagree, record its own reasons and decide differently, or send the case back for further inquiry. A specific, calm representation gives it a reason to look again.
If the role-mixing came from an inquiry officer acting as prosecutor in an inquiry without a presenting officer, read who does what between the presenting officer and the inquiry officer; that ground is closely related to bias and is often argued alongside it.
Mistakes that make bias petitions fail
- Filing after an adverse ruling, and only then. A petition that comes the day after a refused adjournment looks like a reaction to the ruling, whatever its real basis.
- Waiting until the evidence is over. If you knew of the earlier role at the start but said nothing until the end, the authority will ask why, and the delay may be treated as acceptance.
- Relying on rumour. 'I was told he has already decided' is not enough without the name of the person who heard it and, ideally, that person's signed account.
- Attacking the officer personally. Strong language turns a legal question into a quarrel, and quarrels rarely end in your favour.
- Filing repeat petitions. A second petition on the same facts after rejection is seen as a delay tactic and can be noted against you.
- Not attending afterwards. Staying away after a rejection risks an ex parte report, which is a much bigger problem than the bias you feared.
Railway staff, vigilance cases and retired employees
Railway employees follow the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and the Railway Board's guidelines of 27 December 2022 on bias petitions, which the CVC has since commended to other organisations. The same approach of facts, dates and sources applies. Where no presenting officer is appointed, which is common in railway inquiries, bias complaints often concern the inquiry officer's questioning; record those objections sitting by sitting.
In vigilance cases of Group A officers, the inquiry is sometimes held by a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries of the Central Vigilance Commission. A petition alleging bias against such an officer still goes to the disciplinary authority, which may consult the Commission before deciding. These petitions are rare and need a clear factual basis.
Retired employees facing an inquiry continued or started under the pension rules can file a bias petition in the same way. The authority deciding it may be the one competent under those rules rather than the old disciplinary authority, so check the order under which the proceedings are being continued.
Group C staff in small offices face a particular problem: the only officer senior enough to hold the inquiry may also be the one who reported the matter. If so, the petition can ask that an officer from another office or division be appointed, which most departments can arrange.
Before you file anything
Read the order appointing the inquiry officer, then go through every listed document and witness statement looking for his name. If you find it, you have the strongest kind of ground. If you do not, write down the facts that worry you, with dates, and ask honestly whether a stranger reading them would share your fear.
Advocate B.K. Singh's second tip: file at the first real sign, not after the department's evidence is in. A petition raised early, on facts, is a request for fairness. The same petition filed late tends to be read as a tactic, and that reading is hard to shake.
Whatever you decide, keep preparing your defence as if the same officer will hear the case; our page on defending yourself before the inquiry officer covers the hearing stage.
Before you send a bias petition, it is worth having a second pair of eyes on the draft, the appointment order and the order sheets. To have them reviewed, or to hear when the law on inquiry officers changes, speak to Advocate B.K. Singh.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask for the inquiry officer to be changed because I think he is biased?
Yes. File a written petition with the disciplinary authority setting out the facts. Under a DoPT instruction of 1972, the inquiry is to be paused and the petition sent to the competent authority for a decision.
How long does the decision on a bias petition take?
The CVC's circular of February 2024 asks authorities to decide it quickly, preferably within 30 days. In practice it can take one to three months, so send a reminder if you hear nothing after a month.
Is refusing my request for documents enough to prove bias?
Usually not. A refusal is a ruling you can challenge later. It may support a bias petition only alongside other facts, such as remarks prejudging the case or private contact with the presenting officer.
Can I appeal if the bias petition is rejected?
No separate appeal lies, because Rule 22 of the CCS (CCA) Rules bars appeals against orders made during an inquiry. Raise the point again in your representation on the inquiry report, in your appeal against any penalty and before the CAT if needed.
Will the whole inquiry start again with a new inquiry officer?
Not necessarily. Under Rule 14(22), the new inquiry officer can act on evidence already recorded, and may recall witnesses if needed in the interests of justice. Ask for a recall in writing if a key witness was examined before the change.
Should I stop attending the inquiry until my petition is decided?
No. Attend every sitting and note your objection if anything beyond routine work is done. Staying away can lead to an ex parte inquiry.
Can I go to CAT straight away against a biased inquiry officer?
You can file, but the Tribunal usually waits for the inquiry to finish. It may step in early only where bias is obvious from the record, such as an inquiry officer who is the complainant or a listed witness.
Who decides a bias petition if the disciplinary authority itself is biased?
The petition should then go to the authority above the disciplinary authority, explaining why. An officer cannot fairly decide a complaint of bias against himself.
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M. More than twenty years in practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and other tribunals. This guide was written and reviewed by his team.
This guide explains the law in general terms and is not legal advice. For advice on your own papers, contact the team.
Related guides
DisciplineMemorandum of Charges Explained: Articles, Imputations, Documents and Witnesses
What each part of a Rule 14 memorandum of charges means: the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses.
DisciplineWritten Statement of Defence: 9 Mistakes That Weaken Your Case
Nine common mistakes in a written statement of defence to a Rule 14 charge memo, what each one costs you in the inquiry, and how to fix it within 15...
DisciplineShould You Admit Any Part of a Charge? What Happens If You Do
What happens if you admit a charge, or only part of one, in a departmental inquiry: Rule 14(9), findings without evidence, penalty and safer ways to...
DisciplineInspection of Listed Documents in an Inquiry: How to Ask and What to Note
Rule 14(11) inspection in a departmental inquiry: how to ask, what to check in the originals, what to note and what to do when a listed document is...
DisciplineAsking for Additional Documents in Your Defence: Relevance and Refusals
How to ask for additional documents in a departmental inquiry under Rule 14(12), show relevance, and answer the inquiry officer if he refuses them.
DisciplineHow to Cross-Examine a Department Witness in a Departmental Inquiry
How to cross-examine a prosecution witness in a Rule 14 departmental inquiry: earlier statements, questions that work, objections and the deposition.