The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) set up a notice board outside its office and made public the contact details of all superintendents and clerks.
The job description of the employees was also mentioned on the bulletin board to clear up any confusion.
While the authorities maintain that the billboard was installed for the convenience of the public, it is learned that RTA Narinder Singh Dhaliwal ordered the installation following an increased number of complaints about the agent-infested RTA office.
The bulletin board indicated that residents experiencing work-related issues at the RTA office could contact the affected employees.
Sharing details, Dhaliwal said the decision was made to provide residents with citizen-centric and hassle-free facilities. He added that the move was intended to end confusion and save time for residents and staff.
Massive crowds were seen during the morning hours each day as distraught residents jumped from office to office in search of the right official, often ending up in the trap of officers who charged money in exchange for l execution of work.
The stockade contains the names and contact details of Section Officer Munish Chaudhary, Motor Vehicle Inspector Naresh Kaler, Junior Assistant Kiranjit Kaur, Clerks Amardeep Singh, Ravinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and Operators of data entry Anshul Khullar and Chamkaur Singh.
However, residents arriving at the RTA office complained that the employee numbers listed on the bulletin board were either turned off or in busy mode.
A Gill Road resident, who came to the RTA office at 4pm to meet Registrar Sukhwinder Singh for a no objection certificate, complained that his phone was off and he was not no no longer available at his office.
A big drama unfolded in the office in the morning when a resident alleged that an officer had taken ₹2,800 from him instead of promised ₹2,300 for submitting his challan of ₹2,000. He filed a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, whereupon a departmental employee grabbed the officer and handed him an amount of ₹500 to the plaintiff. The agent, meanwhile, said he worked for a lawyer and accused ₹300 to prepare a file.