What was agreed upon regarding the much-discussed 'cooling off period' when the report of the Civil Bill was passed in the State Order and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives, has changed when it was passed by the House on Sunday. With the wording and spirit with which the committee has resolved the issue that has been complicated for a long time, it is an unforgivable move both from the point of view of process and intention.

It has also raised questions about the integrity and competence of the staff who audited the report, the chairman who sent it to the house and the parliamentarians who have the responsibility and authority to read it section-by-section or not. How was the bill brought to the House with a different arrangement than the agreement in the committee? Who added conflicting provisions at what stage?

Why did the parliamentarians not know when discussing the bill with such a provision? Did they read and pass or not? Until there is a logical answer to these questions, the question raised about the credibility of the chairman of the committee, MP and the entire parliament will remain unanswered. 

There is an established and clear process in which a bill is introduced in Parliament and becomes a law after its passage. Sometimes MPs can register bills as 'Private Bills'. But generally, the government registers the bill in the parliament, discusses it with the subject committee of the parliament and presents it to the full house. Based on that, MPs decide whether to pass or not. Parliamentarians can also propose amendments when they consider

necessary. Bills passed by both houses of Parliament become law after the President certifies them. The civil bill was also going through the same process, but due to the confusion in the middle, the bill was scrapped. 

In the bill that the government registered in the parliament in February 2080, there was a provision that 'one should not work in a position other than constitutional, diplomatic appointment or any other appointment made by the government without taking the prior approval of the government of Nepal for two years from the date of retirement'. This arrangement had no obstacle to constitutional and political appointments, it was intended that appointments to private and non-governmental organizations apart from the government should only require the approval of the government.

However, the sub-committee formed under the chairmanship of MP Dilendra Prasad Badu of the State Administration Committee had put a 'cooling off period' on constitutional and political appointments. The sub-committee said, 'Civil servants or employees who have retired from other government services will not be appointed to any constitutional or government post without completing a period of one year from the date of retirement. However, the provisions of this sub-section shall not be deemed to be a hindrance to diplomatic appointments made by the Government of Nepal or appointment to the post of judge on the recommendation of the Judicial Council in accordance with the Constitution of Nepal.' 

After protesting that the arrangement made by the sub-committee opened the way for the appointment of judges and ambassadors and discriminated by stopping other appointments, the state arrangement committee unanimously agreed to keep the same two-year 'cooling off period' for all. The committee clearly stated in sub-section 4 of section 82 of the bill, 'Civil servants or employees who have resigned or retired from other government services will not be eligible for any constitutional appointment or appointment to government positions until the completion of two years from the date of retirement.' However, the chairman of the committee Ramhari Khatiwada and secretary Suraj Kumar Dura added sub-section 5 to the bill and continued the section (4) kept by the government. The provision of 'not to work in positions other than constitutional or diplomatic appointments and any other appointments made by the Government of Nepal for two years from the date of retirement' was continued in sub-section (5).

The MPs passed the Bill and the report without reading the pages of the report, based on the propaganda that the State Arrangements Committee has kept a two-year 'cooling off period'. As a result, clause 5 has broken the provisions of clause 4 of the bill. This is a grave betrayal of good governance, parliament, committees and citizens. 

Khatiwada, the Chairman of the State Administration Committee, should take public accountability for this matter. He will no longer be allowed to change the subject matter written in the report signed by him. When and how the Bill report was tampered with should also be investigated. Questions have been raised on Khatiwada as the chairman who cannot honestly carry out the decisions of his committee. He should also pave the way for the investigation to bring the truth to the public. 

The leadership of civil servants was individually and collectively lobbying to remove the cooling off period. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba also expressed distaste for the 'cooling off period' under the pressure of the employees, which was also supported by the Speaker.

For this reason, Asar was suddenly disappeared after being placed on the agenda of 'discussing the civil bill and submitting it for decision' in the House of Representatives in the first week of June. However, when the bill passed by the House of Representatives was passed on Sunday, as has been done below, it has given strength to the series of deceptions. That is why there is no doubt that it should be investigated.