The long-running TVI Express pyramid scheme resurfaced among Nagpur's state-run railway employees in October 2012. Movement Inspector Komal Gajbhye allegedly led a recruitment drive within the Central Railway Department, promising hundreds of duped workers "double returns in eight days."
A Times of India investigation, published October 27, 2012, exposed the widespread scam. This public revelation led to some immediate consequences. Gajbhye paid back one of the members he defrauded. The Divisional Railway Manager then transferred Gajbhye and another top recruiter to posts distant from their victims.
No government agency has launched an investigation into the Central Railway recruitment scheme. The railway department itself has not fired anyone involved. An internal inquiry, assigned to an assistant personnel officer, appears to have been shelved.
Journalist Vijay Pinjarkar detailed the events surrounding his article. He learned of the scam when a source saw women arguing with a senior movement inspector at the Divisional Railway Manager's office. One woman attempted to throw a slipper at the inspector, claiming he had promised double returns in eight days.
Pinjarkar found that more than a dozen movement inspectors and a young woman from the signaling department had defrauded many employees. They misused their official positions and departmental resources. Many employees were recruited even after TVI Express had reportedly ceased operations in 2010.
On the evening of October 26, as Pinjarkar prepared his story, he spoke with two movement inspectors identified as masterminds. Both admitted to selling memberships for quick profit. Pinjarkar's phone call caused panic among the involved inspectors. They met to discuss how to stop the story.
The movement inspector himself called Pinjarkar later that evening. He asked to meet upon returning from Wardha and requested the story be stopped. Around 10 PM, the inspector called again, offering to meet in Nagpur and expressing concern about his career if the story ran.
The article appeared on the front page the next day. It generated considerable public attention. The involved inspectors avoided contact until their senior divisional operating manager, who was on leave, returned. Pinjarkar received many calls from victimized employees, who thanked him for the exposure.
He continued to receive 10-12 calls daily from employees reporting corruption and illegal actions by inspectors and operating managers. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager shifted only two inspectors. He then adopted a policy of mutual silence, according to Pinjarkar.