KATHMANDU, Aug 6: The special committee formed to investigate the error in the Federal Civil Service Bill, 2080 BS, has failed to identify the guilty. A 116-page report submitted by the committee to parliament seems to raise the question of ‘morality’ as a way to hide the culprits.
The committee had investigated who was responsible for the use of language in the bill that rendered ineffective the provision of a two-year ‘cooling-off period’ to be applied after resignation or retirement of government employees. Although the committee’s report questioned the morality of Ramhari Khatiwada, Chairperson of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee (SAGGC), and Chief Secretary Eknarayan Aryal, it concealed who revised the bill’s language and which leaders or officials were involved.
It was concluded that the Secretariat of the SAGGC failed to properly record meeting decisions, draft the bill accurately, and reflect these exactly in the final report, which led to the concealment of the facts.
The lack of alignment between the passed matters and the behaviors cited in the report was primarily due to the Secretariat’s weakness. During the investigation, officials, ministry representatives, and other stakeholders blamed each other and avoided responsibility, as noted in the report, which caused the committee to fail in identifying the culprits.
The parliamentary committee itself was unclear about who made the human error in finalizing the bill’s draft, due to a lack of clarity and standardization in the process. Although the committee mentioned the absence of a systematic process for recording agreements during discussions, certifying the final report by all members, and signing it, it remained silent about whether all members of the SAGGCC should be held accountable.
Sticking with New Year’s resolution
The investigation committee also revealed a lack of coordination and trust between the political leadership and bureaucracy during the bill drafting process. It recommended the mandatory presence of certain ministry officials during clause-wise discussions and increasing their accountability. The committee further recommended preparing and implementing a ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ to streamline decision-making and reduce human errors.
Since he signed the report, the committee concluded that Khatiwada, Chairperson of the SAGGC, should take moral responsibility. The roles of the Government of Nepal’s Chief Secretary, the Secretary of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (originator of the Bill), the former Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and the Secretary of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers’ Office (legal reviewer) were noted. Still, questions about who was involved were overlooked. “The report did not answer the question of whose order or instruction led to the removal of the cooling-off period,” said a ruling party MP.
According to him, Chief Secretary Aryal was lobbying even after the SAGGC had passed the bill, and it remains unclear whether he alone is responsible or if all the employees lobbying alongside him are guilty. Chief Secretary Aryal, along with other secretaries, had met Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Nepali Congress (NC) President Sher Bahadur Deuba, Speaker Devaraj Ghimire, National Assembly Chairperson Narayan Prasad Dahal, and others, urging them not to include the cooling-off period provision. However, the SAGGC had reached a consensus to include the cooling-off period. When the bill reached parliament, the provision was removed and passed, which led to the formation of the special parliamentary committee for investigation.
The committee formed under NC MP Jeevan Pariyar was tasked with investigating the irregularities in the cooling-off period of the Federal Civil Service Bill, 2080 BS. The committee held that Khatiwada, Chairperson of the SAGGC, was morally responsible for the drafting error and finalized its report only on Tuesday morning, submitting it to Speaker Devaraj Ghimire. The investigation committee met continuously for three days and finalized the report at 4 AM Tuesday. During the finalization, there was disagreement between the ruling and opposition party MPs.
The Federal Civil Service Bill, 2080 BS, passed by the SAGGC on May 16, was only debated in the House of Representatives on June 15. The House of Representatives (HoR) passed the bill on June 29. The bill contained errors related to the cooling-off period.
Although the SAGGC agreed to maintain a two-year period, the bill’s language was ambiguous and open to dual interpretation. After strong controversy, the HoR formed a special committee to investigate. The committee members included NC MP Susheela Thing, CPN-UML MPs Ishwari Gharti and Narayan Prasad Acharya, CPN (Maoist Centre) 's Madhav Sapkota, Rastriya Swatantra Party’s Ganesh Parajuli, and Rastriya Prajatantra Party’s Roshan Karki.
There has been a mistake, but not from me: Chair Khatiwada
Special class and first-class officers were present in the SAGGC meeting and explicitly said, ‘Please remove the cooling-off period, we sincerely request this.’ Until the day the SAGGC passed the report, the Chief Secretary, secretaries, and high-level officials remained opposed to the cooling-off period.
At the SAGGC meeting on May 16, the word ‘resignation’ was also added before passing the cooling-off period provision. Surely, it is not that there is no mistake, but it is not from my side. I have supported including the cooling-off period provision from the beginning until now, and in the days to come too, I support the National Assembly enacting this provision.
On May 20, at an informal meeting attended by Minister for Education and Science Technology Raghuji Pant, the then Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration Minister Rajkumar Gupta, lawmakers Lila Nath Shrestha and Dilendra Badu, a phone call came to Minister Pant, after which signing was halted for the day. The report states that instead of one year, the cooling-off period provision was passed as two years. The responsibility to record these amendments and their impact—such as which clauses are affected—must be reviewed by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the relevant ministry.
A subcommittee was tasked with clause-wise discussion. There was extensive discussion on why the cooling-off period was necessary. Senior and first-class employees bargained for personal benefit with political leadership, but political leaders understood the necessity of preventing the tradition of appointments after retirement through influence. The cooling-off period was applied to both civil service and government employees to cover all those enjoying government privileges.
