The Parliamentary Special Committee formed to investigate the confusion about the 'cooling off period' in the Federal Civil Service Bill is afraid to find fault. The committee hesitated because of pressure from the political and higher administrative levels not to recommend action.

The party's instructions to the committee

A special parliamentary inquiry committee was formed after it was revealed that the provision of 'cooling off period' was rigged to change the decision made by the State Affairs Committee of the Parliament. Before finalizing the report, at 12.30 noon on Sunday, under the leadership of committee chairman Jeevan Pariyar, Sushila Thing of Congress and Ishwari Gharti and Narayan Acharya of UML reached the office of the UML parliamentary party, where Shyam Ghimire and Mahesh Bertaula, chief whips of Congress and UML, gave instructions on writing the report. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba agreed to mention only theoretical issues without naming names, so their instructions were to write the report accordingly. 

Staff's disobedience

Chairman of the State Order Committee Ramhari Khatiwada, Secretary Suraj Kumar Dura, Chief Secretary to the Government Ek Narayan Aryal, Secretary General of Parliament Padma Prasad Pandey, Secretary to the Prime Minister's Office Phaninder Gautam, Secretary Ravilal Panth, Joint Secretary Meera Acharya, then Law Secretary Udayraj Sapkota, Joint Secretary Subhash Bhattarai and others were questioned by the investigation committee. But the chief secretary, general secretary, secretary and joint secretaries disobeyed when the committee called them to verify the statements they had made in the committee a few days ago. They claim that the parliamentary committee does not have the right to verify the statement.   The

committee itself lowered the dignity of the parliament. The officials of the

committee claimed that there was 'intentional deception' in the bill. But the committee has hesitated after having to ascertain who was involved in the fraud. The committee is afraid to write down what action will be taken against those involved. The meeting, which started at 7 am on Sunday, lasted for 15 hours till 11 pm, but could not reach a conclusion. Even though the deadline expired on Sunday, it is said that the meeting will continue on Monday morning. 

...

Ruling Congress chief whip Shyam Kumar Ghimire and UML chief whip Mahesh Bertaula consulted with members of the ruling party along with special committee chairman Jeevan Pariyar for two hours on Sunday. After being called by Ghimire and Bertaula, the Speaker went for discussion along with the ruling MPs Sushila Thing, Narayan Acharya and Ishwari Gharti in the Pariyar Committee. 

According to the conversation with their party leader, Ghimire and Bertaula said about what position to take and what to write in the report. 

UML chief whip Bertaula said that both the ruling parties have taken information from their MPs about how much work the special committee is doing. 

We told you to do what you are doing now and what you have seen. Once the term of the committee has been extended. The chairman is from the ruling party, and what to do if the deadline is extended was also discussed. It came up that there is no need to extend the deadline," he said, "We are not formally saying do this and that, where did the report writing go? We are interested in that. We said it would be better to do it quickly.

Chief whip of Congress Ghimire responded that it was a normal conversation with the members of the committee. "What kind of report the committee brings, that is its jurisdiction, but it is my personal opinion that it is not possible to recommend action without evidence and basis, even by judicial principles," he said.  According to an MP of the ruling party in the

committee, there is no sufficient basis and evidence to take action individually, and there is pressure to bring a report to give immunity to those involved in the act of putting a bill to deactivate the system related to 'cooling off period'. 

Another Congress leader said that it should not be made a very serious issue as the committee could not establish a solid basis and evidence that action could be taken against a person. If the Chairman of the State Administration Committee is to be found guilty, why not prosecute the 26 members of that committee? If only one secretary of the committee is to be made a scapegoat, another question arises as to what the other MPs were watching," said the leader to Kantipur, "therefore there had to be evidence to take action personally. There had to be a solid foundation. Even if it was done under the instructions of the Chief Secretary and the Secretary General of the Parliament, there should be proof of it, as far as I understand, the committee has not been able to show evidence.'  According to a member of the

committee, the investigation special committee will point out the need for transparency and accountability in the bill making process in the report. A preliminary draft of the report has been prepared to suggest that more precautions should be taken in the bill making process to avoid such errors in the future. The committee's conclusion is that making the employees aware and organizing the process should be prioritized. This dispute has taken the question of coordination and responsibility between the Parliament and the personnel administration seriously," said the member of the committee, "to prevent such procedural errors from recurring in the future, the need for the Parliament and related agencies to take serious steps will be pointed out." 

On Saturday, the special committee came to the conclusion that the provision of 'cooling off period' in the bill was deliberately kept intact. From the drafting to the writing of the report of the parliamentary committee, the involvement of experienced high-ranking employees of the Ministry of Law and General Administration and the Parliament Secretariat, the 'lobbying' of the Chief Secretary against the 'cooling off period', the general secretary and secretaries of the Parliament, and the fact that there was conspiracy and bias in the writing of the report, the committee came to the conclusion that the State Order Committee had demanded an investigation. But the committee has already come under political and administrative pressure to discuss what action to recommend to those involved in such actions.  The parliamentarians of the opposition party representing the

committee have been taking a stand in favor of preparing a report with recommendations for action against the culprits. Opposition parties Madhav Sapkota of Maoist, Ganesh Parajuli of RSVP and Roshan Karki of RP are members of the special committee. 

The opposition MPs say that the committee, which has the right to find the guilty and recommend action during the four-week investigation, acquitted the guilty only on theoretical issues. They have warned that they will write a different opinion if there is no recommendation of action by taking a guilty plea. 

Chairman of the special committee, Pariyar said that the report will be prepared by consensus as much as possible. "Different opinions have come from MPs about how to go and what to do. "Preparations are being made to submit the report to the House of Representatives meeting on Monday," he said. As the special investigation committee could not come to any conclusion till 11 o'clock on Sunday night, it has been adjourned to hold a continuous meeting from 7 o'clock on Monday morning. 

The ruling MP has been arguing that there is not enough evidence to show any person guilty in the bill and that there is no basis to confirm that the order of Chief Secretary Ek Narayan Aryal was tampered with. "During the investigation, the committee admitted that there was a serious conspiracy and malice, but there was not enough basis and evidence to be clear as to who caused this weakness," said a member of the committee. The staff questioned by the committee were summoned to the office on Sunday for verification of statements. But Chief Secretary Eknarayan Aryal, General Secretary of Parliament Padma Prasad Pandey, Secretaries Phaninder Gautam, Ravilal Panth were not present. Gautam is the Law Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office while Panth is the Secretary in the Ministry of General Administration. According to the secretariat of the committee, only the state administration committee chairman Ramhari Khatiwada, secretary Suraj Kumar Dura and joint secretary of the general administration ministry Meera Acharya have verified the statement. 

The committee secretariat has informed that Chief Secretary Aryal had switched off his mobile phone when called for statement verification. Aryal responded that he could not attend the cabinet meeting because it was time to attend. The Cabinet meeting was held at 4:30 pm. He was called by the committee in the afternoon. "At first, I was in the cabinet meeting, I didn't know it was called," he said, "It's like the police did an investigation and the work of the parliamentary committee?" It is also a practice to get the statement verified?' It is a long-standing practice for parliamentary committees to call the relevant person and take a statement. 

General Secretary Pandey, who is in the administrative leadership of the Federal Parliament, said that he had no information about the inquiry committee calling him. Pandey said to Kantipur, "It was only you who came to know that the committee called for the verification of statements. I had no idea." He said that since the parliamentary committee is not an investigating body, there is no point in calling him for verification of his statements. They are not an investigative body. Inquiry committees and investigating bodies have their own scope. It was seen that the parliamentary special committee is trying to turn the inquiry into an investigation,' he said, 'The audio is with them, if they do not understand it, they will call for further clarification, but they do not have the right to call for verification of statements.' 

Subhash Bhattarai, joint secretary of the Ministry of Law, who was present in every meeting of the State Law Committee and participated in the writing of the report, has been absent even though he was informed that he would come to verify the statement, the secretariat of the committee informed. According to MPs, Chief Secretary Aryal, General Secretary Pandey and Secretaries did not go to the special committee and prevented others from going there. According to the Committee Secretariat, the then Law Secretary Udayraj Sapkota was out of Kathmandu and could not be present for the statement verification. 

According to a senior official of the Parliament Secretariat, it is a serious matter that high-ranking staff and the Secretary General of the Parliament do not come when called by the special committee. It is a constitutional provision that the government should be accountable to the parliamentary committee. The Parliamentary Committee is also a part of the Parliament. The parliamentary committee can give instructions and recommendations to the government, the authority and the human rights commission and the parliament to take action against the prime minister, ministers and government officials, but when the staff did not go to the inquiry, the authority and authority of the parliamentary committee and the entire parliament is in crisis,' said the official, 'This has also raised questions about the legitimacy of the committee.' 

After the passage of the Civil Bill with the provision of 'cooling off period' by the Parliamentary Committee, the Chief Secretary, General Secretary of the Parliament, Secretaries went to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba to put pressure on them. They said that if the provision of 'cooling off period' is not removed, they will resign en masse. In the special committee, Chief Secretary Aryal challenged that it will take until the end to remove that provision. 

The State Law Committee unanimously passed the civil service bill on 2nd May with the provision that in section 82 (4) of the bill, 'Civil servants or employees who have resigned or retired from the service will not be appointed to any constitutional or government position before the completion of two years from the date of retirement.' After putting in the said provision, the provision that was already placed in the bill that 'not to be appointed to posts other than constitutional or diplomatic appointments and any other appointments made by the Government of Nepal' should have been removed. But after it was retained in Section 82 (5A), questions arose everywhere.