By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 12 May: An unusual controversy involving an RTO employee, alleged bribery, viral videos and a transporter’s dramatic protest has snowballed into a major embarrassment for the Transport Department in Uttarakhand. Though the case does not involve a direct vigilance trap or proven recovery of bribe money, the uproar surrounding the allegations have travelled far enough for the department to suspend the accused employee and order a formal inquiry into the entire episode.
The incident, which happened in Mianwala village in Dehradun, has remained viral on social media over the past two days. Here a transporter and businessman Gajram Singh Chauhan allegedly locked an RTO employee inside his office and informed the police as well as media persons through the 112 emergency number. Chauhan claimed that the RTO employee is a regular visitor to his office and has regularly sought bribe from him. The matter soon attracted huge public attention and the videos of the incident spread rapidly across social media platforms, triggering widespread discussion over alleged corruption in the Transport Department.
Confirming the departmental action, Additional Transport Commissioner Sanat Kumar stated that accused employee Shashikant Tengwal, posted as Transport Sub-Inspector, has been suspended with immediate effect. His powers related to vehicle checking and enforcement activities have also been withdrawn. A departmental inquiry has been initiated and the entire matter is being investigated in detail.
According to eyewitnesses and viral videos, chaos erupted after allegations surfaced that transporter Gajram Singh Chauhan had confined the uniformed RTO employee inside his office premises. Crowds gathered outside the office of Singh Enterprises in Mianwala as curiosity over the unfolding “drama” continued to grow. The RTO employee reportedly remained locked inside for more than an hour and the office shutter was opened only after media personnel arrived at the spot.
The visuals from inside the office further intensified the controversy. The RTO employee was seen sitting inside wearing a helmet while Gajram Singh Chauhan openly accused him of regularly collecting monthly bribes from his establishment. Chauhan alleged that the employee had been taking Rs 8,000 every month and had once again arrived to collect money on the day of the incident. According to him, the employee was trapped and locked inside the office precisely for this reason.
The RTO employee, however, strongly denied the allegations and gave an entirely different explanation for his presence there. He claimed that Gajram had invited him for ‘rasmalai’ and that he frequently visits the office casually for refreshments such as lassi and snacks. The employee even claimed that he had come there merely to relieve himself. Meanwhile, Chauhan displayed an envelope containing currency notes kept on the table and alleged that these were intended for the accused employee.
Chauhan further claimed that he possesses old video footage allegedly showing earlier instances of bribery involving the same employee. The RTO employee, appearing visibly confident during the confrontation, challenged Chauhan to produce any such footage proving bribery. Throughout the heated exchange, multiple videos continued to be recorded by those present at the spot.
During the entire episode, the RTO employee was also seen speaking to his senior officials over the phone, narrating the developments and reportedly taking instructions from higher authorities. After nearly two to three hours of chaos, arguments and public spectacle, the employee eventually left the premises on his motorcycle, even exchanging greetings with journalists present there.
However, the incident raised several uncomfortable questions for the Transport Department, particularly regarding why an enforcement employee frequently visited the office of a transporter. Members associated with the RTO enforcement wing claimed that officers and staff often visit transport operators and there is nothing unusual about such interactions. They maintained that allegations of bribery were baseless.
On the other hand, Gajram Singh Chauhan, who sells building construction material near Sant Kabir School, alleged that the employee had specifically come to collect bribe money and was therefore deliberately confined inside the office. Chauhan maintained that he conducts his business transparently and publicly displays rates of all construction material sold from his premises. Despite this, he alleged, illegal monetary demands were repeatedly being made from him.
He further stated that ordinary citizens are now openly coming forward against corruption and resisting unlawful demands. The suspended RTO employee, meanwhile, warned that he too would file complaints in the matter and claimed that Chauhan would eventually have to answer before the government.
The controversy soon reached Transport Minister Pradeep Batra, who assured that a fair inquiry would be conducted and strict action would follow if any employee was found guilty. Simultaneously, some officials of the Transport Department were reportedly seen attempting to minimise the impact of the viral videos by reaching out to journalists, while efforts also appeared to begin towards controlling damage caused by the controversy.
Chauhan however seems to have prepared a well-planned strategy before allegedly confining the RTO employee. A banner carrying sarcastic and critical remarks targeting the functioning of the RTO department had also been put up outside the office. The banner attracted considerable public attention and became a centre of curiosity for passersby, many of whom were seen venting their frustration over alleged corruption while reading its contents.
At present, Chauhan has submitted a written complaint at the Harrawala police outpost accusing an RTO employee of demanding bribe money. However, notably, no specific name has reportedly been mentioned in the complaint. Since Chauhan has further claimed that he possesses old video footage of earlier bribe transactions, attention is now focused on whether such evidence actually exists and what it may reveal during the investigation.
At the same time, legal and procedural questions are also being raised over the manner in which the incident unfolded. Some observers argue that Chauhan should have approached the Vigilance Department directly, which could then have conducted a formal trap operation if bribery allegations were genuine. As of now, yesterday’s events do not conclusively establish that the accused employee directly accepted bribe money at the spot. However, Chauhan has alleged that slips or written notes used for monetary transactions were being issued by the accused employee, and investigators may now examine whether these slips carried details of payment amounts. All eyes are now on the outcome of the inquiry promised by the department.
