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, Speaker Devraj Ghimire Jaisingh Mahara for Kantipur:

It is a rare event in parliamentary history that there is a decision in the parliamentary committee, but there is a different provision in the report of the passed bill. How have you taken it? The question has arisen whether the

report has been resolved in all ways by looking at what has been achieved or not. The chairman of the committee (Ramhari Khatiwada) said that everything was decided from below. Based on that, the report was forwarded and distributed, discussed and passed. Until then nothing had come. Today they say that there is a problem in writing. Now you have to pay attention to these things.

The party leaders and MPs say that there should be an investigation into this matter. What do you think about it? What should be done after understanding the advice of

leaders. But what has come has been passed by the House. No one seems to have changed in between. If it was discussed and not passed, then it should be seen where the error occurred, who made the error. The

parties are saying that this is against parliamentary practice, the committee passed one thing, the report came up with another?

What has come has passed. It's about how you sent it from the committee. The decision of the committee is not a matter of passing and submitting the other. If so, then it is serious. That has not happened yet.

The committee member decided to keep the 'cooling off period' for 2 years during the discussion, but in the final report, you are saying that the opposite provision was made, right?

Now you may have to live with MPs who do that. We have no such information, no one has informed us so.

The chairman of the committee and the MP have said that a committee should be formed to investigate this matter. Have you made any preparations regarding the formation of the investigation committee?

investigation, what has been passed and what should be passed? What is broken, what needs to be corrected? That is my first focus. Where the error occurred, who did it, and why, are the things behind it.

Opinions are coming from the speaker about the possibility of correcting the error in the bill. Is the regulation authorized or not? Have you thought about that?

What will happen if 'and' is added or removed in any section of the bill? Does the Speaker have that right? Who has given the right to add or subtract 'and' for small things? where is it If that's the case, I'll fix it, I'll fix everything! I am not going to take the things that have come up there into the discussion as they are, and not to carry forward whatever decision is made.

What does the National Assembly do now and only after returning from there, does it come under the authority of the House of Representatives? What was passed by the

committee was discussed and the same topic was passed by the assembly. When the assembly passed the same, when it was said that we had not sent such a thing, show me which one had been sent.

Is it now trying to escape the speaker's head that it had to be removed or corrected? Matching is also a process. Combining the words and, or, and also makes a big difference. There is no right to take away from someone or to keep someone from keeping. If the speaker wants to do it, he should tell me under which laws, rights and regulations. How did it go, why did it happen? It has a process, a sequence.