It has been found that the employees and MPs of the State Order and Good Governance Committee Secretariat of the House of Representatives have committed serious fraud in the provision in the Civil Service Bill that no government appointment can be taken for two years from the date of resignation or retirement from government service.

In this context, Jaisingh Mahara had a conversation with the Chairman of the State Order and Good Governance Committee Ramhari Khatiwada for Kantipur:

In the report signed by you and the secretary, did you see that there is another point that refutes the 'cooling off period'?

We gave the task of writing the unanimous decision of the committee to the secretary of the committee, general administration and joint secretary of the Ministry of Law. There was no cooling-off period in the bill, after the committee put it, there was no such provision in the next sub-section. We also looked at the paper decided by the

committee. It was written that sub-section 5 would not be kept if the committee signed it. Sometimes an officer of the Ministry of Law and General Administration suggests that no other section or sub-section can be inserted after this. They also have a role in writing the report. After putting 'cooling off period' in sub-section 4, we thought that sub-section 5 did not get everyone's attention, it was removed and we signed it.

Were you coerced into signing?

We all committed to the point of 'cooling off period'. When we spoke in the Parliament, we said that the 'cooling off period' had come. Even from 1st to 15th June no one noticed that, we were all assured. This fatal error has occurred. Now what to do with it, from our side. Making a clear arrangement in sub-section 4 of section 82 to keep a 'cooling off period' while finalizing the

report. Also create Clause 5 to accommodate another clause of the original Bill. Amending some words of sub-section 5 such as the phrase 'without taking the prior approval of the Government'. And the detail that neutralizes the 'cooling off period' itself, i.e. section 5 (a) can be ignored as it is not enough attention? 

After looking at all the records, the Speaker has said that he will investigate it, we have said that an investigation should be done. We have decided not to include this clause while reading the sub-section to all members of the committee. The writing committee was given to the Secretary, Joint Secretary, Law and General Administration. It is customary for the Ministry of Law to inform that this should not happen after it happens, the Ministry of General Administration also says, they did not say anything about it.

Is it possible for you to sign on the topic of so much discussion and controversy, and say that you did not see the report? After highlighting the

above, does anyone imagine that there is 'bullying' in it from somewhere? The media was writing, others were also interested. I was among those who fought for it. I am of the opinion that the sub-committee should be kept for two years instead of one year. The fact that three ministers came and said that the 'cooling off period' was 2 years was not ignored. 

Shouldn't you and the secretary take moral responsibility in this?  I have already requested to investigate the

. If found guilty, I am ready to face any punishment.

After the 'cooling off period' system was put in place, the chief secretary, general secretary and secretaries of the parliament said it would be unconstitutional and insulting.

It is not the employees who decide whether the laws made by Parliament are constitutional or unconstitutional. We see the supremacy of Parliament. We have decided that the supremacy of the Parliament should be maintained. In the meeting with the Speaker, MP Krishna Gopal Shrestha has clarified that whether the people walking with the procession had any influence. He has also told the speaker about where this game was and how it happened. That is why we have said that there should be an investigation.