The 'patching' done in the recently passed Federal Civil Service Bill by the House of Representatives is very objectionable. In the unanimously passed bill, an important provision was made to stop political or constitutional appointment immediately after retiring from the administrative post by arranging a two-year 'cooling off period'.

But different from the one passed by the House of Representatives, the bill has been introduced by adding the sentence 'except for constitutional or diplomatic appointments and other government appointments'. This action is more a question of intention than of law. How was the word not decided by the committee, not discussed, added to the bill? Such actions work to reduce public confidence in the Parliament. 

The Chairman of the State Arrangements Committee, Ramhari Khatiwada, has expressed his views on the controversial arrangement regarding 'cooling off period' and said in a conversation with Kantipur, 'I am ready to face punishment if found guilty'. He is the main culprit in this case. Even now, he should not be exempted because he is found guilty and ready to face the punishment. Don't be fooled by the blessings of the leaders. Now he will not get immunity because of the weakness of the officer who prepared the clause of the bill. He should immediately resign and pave the way. No matter how much the chairman of the committee, Khatiwada, explains the advice given by the joint secretary of the Ministry of General Administration as a legal procedure, the questions raised by the people and stakeholders cannot be ignored. The allegation of irregularities especially in the 'cooling off period' is of a serious nature. It is natural for people to understand it as 'bullying'. 

If there is an error in a decision-making process or it hurts public trust, then the person in a responsible position needs to take moral responsibility. This case has once again exposed the lack of transparency and accountability in public administration. Such matters should be investigated and the truth should be brought out and there should not be any delay in punishing the culprits. 

- Pramod Paudel , Kathmandu-32, Pepsicola

A good thing about 'cooling off period' came in the Civil Bill. Even if it didn't come, it was still happening. The government did not listen to the people in any matter of good governance. But after the government brought up the matter, after the discussion and the decision, why did it happen again? Did the 'veteran honorable' sitting in that committee not even know what was passed by themselves? This also shows the intention of the government. Faces with bad intentions are becoming increasingly recognizable.