Charge Sheet Crisis in RRBs: Do Charge Sheet Delays Prompt Calls for Timely Resolution?

While most RRBs typically resolve disciplinary cases within 6–8 months, Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank stands out as an exception. Several cases there have remained pending for more than four years, even after the completion of inquiries.

An employee from Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank, speaking to Kanal on the condition of anonymity, said, “My inquiry concluded two and half years ago, but my case hasn’t been disposed of yet. It has now been more than four years.” Another employee shared that a colleague was informally told his case would be settled early—provided he achieved business targets.

Insiders allege that such delays are often used as pressure tactics to extract performance or suppress dissent. Some cases that could be resolved with a simple warning are deliberately prolonged, leading to employee demoralisation and institutional distrust.

When Procedure Becomes Punishment

“In many cases, it’s not what you write in your reply, but how you write it,” said a JKGB employee. “If you sound submissive, the case may close quickly. But if you question the system or defend yourself strongly, the process drags on and often ends with harsher penalties.”

Rules Ignored: Denial of Retired Defence Representatives

As per the RRB Service Rules and Regulations, 2010, employees have the right to appoint either retired or in-service staff as their defence representatives during disciplinary proceedings. However, in Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank, this provision is reportedly being overlooked. Employees allege that the bank informally restricts representation to only in-service staff—many of whom are unwilling to take up such roles due to fear of reprisals, effectively leaving charge-sheeted employees without adequate defence.

Image: A screenshot of chargesheet of employee clearly highlighting the restrictions of having retiree as defence representative

Staff members point out that the rule requiring prior permission applies only to advocates, not retired bank employees. “Yet the bank keeps mentioning this restriction in disciplinary letters,” said one employee. This, they argue, reflects either a misinterpretation or a deliberate attempt to limit effective defence representation.

Image: Clause 44 of RRB Service rules highlights the requirement of permission of having a legal practitioner as defence representative.

Charge Sheet Cases Typically Resolved Within 6–12 Months in Most RRBs

Across most RRBs, disciplinary proceedings involving charge sheets are generally resolved within six to eight months, depending on the nature of the charges and the approach of both the management and the employee involved. In rare and exceptional circumstances, the timeline may extend up to a year.

A banker of the Telangana Grameena Bank told Kanal, “The resolution timeline largely depends on the management’s stance and the charge sheeted employee’s response. If the employee cooperates and the case is straightforward, it’s usually closed within eight months.”

Similarly, in Rajasthan Gramin Bank, such proceedings typically conclude within the same timeframe. An official of the Rajasthan Gramin Bank noted, “Most cases are resolved between 6 to 8 months. Only in rare instances—such as when the employee is facing a medical emergency—does it stretch beyond one year.” 

In Odisha Gramin Bank, while the frequency of charge sheet cases is relatively high, their disposal is generally timely. An official from the bank noted, “The number of employees or officers being charge sheeted is concerning. However, most cases are resolved within the standard timeframe of six months to one year.”

Charge Sheets Rare in Assam Gramin Vikash Bank

Instances of charge sheets against employees are notably low in Assam Gramin Vikash Bank.

An official of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, said, “Charge sheets against bank staff are very rare. The bank operates under a comprehensive vigilance manual that outlines the dos and don'ts of official conduct, significantly reducing the likelihood of disciplinary issues.”

The contrast between timely resolutions in most RRBs and prolonged cases in some regions points to a growing need for procedural uniformity and accountability. While service rules aim to provide a just and time-bound disciplinary framework, deviations from this standard not only compromise employees morale but also challenge the spirit of fair employment practices. As employee voices grow louder, the call for consistent enforcement of RRB service rules—and protection against misuse—remains more relevant than ever.