KATHMANDU: Three current and former ministers have provided testimony to the parliamentary special committee investigating alleged tampering in the controversial “cooling-off period” provision included in the Federal Civil Service Bill, 2080.
According to the committee’s report presented in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, statements were taken from Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak (on Shrawan 2), Minister for Education, Science and Technology Raghuji Pant (on Shrawan 4), and former Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration Rajkumar Gupta (on Shrawan 5).
Home Minister Lekhak said that the “cooling-off period” provision, which restricts reappointment of retired civil servants, was misplaced in the Federal Civil Service Bill. He suggested that it would be more appropriate to include such a provision in the Constitutional Council Act or another overarching law to ensure universal applicability.
“This bill isn’t the best place for a cooling-off period. It’s a question of where restrictions or benefits for the police or civil servants should be outlined,” Lekhak stated. “In my opinion, the best place is the Constitutional Council Act or another law that applies to all through recommendation.”
Education Minister Pant said that the provision was included in the draft following discussions and that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli had agreed to move forward with it after being briefed. He claimed there had initially been hesitation, but the PM later gave his approval after prolonged debate within the committee.
“After discussions, there was agreement to include the cooling-off period for government employees post-retirement. Though the PM was initially reluctant, he agreed to proceed after being briefed,” Pant explained.
He added that after the agreement on Jestha 2 during the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee meeting, Committee Chair Ramhari Khatiwada had promised amendments, which is why no further objections were raised. However, Pant admitted that lack of subsequent discussions left questions unresolved.
Former Minister Gupta alleged deliberate manipulation of the bill, claiming someone intentionally removed the cooling-off period provision. He strongly denied the claim that the omission was a printing error and accused unnamed individuals of directing the change.
“I don’t believe it was a printing mistake. Repeated instructions were given to Duraji, Subashji, and Miraji to review the bill properly,” Gupta said. “Meera Acharya was told to go through the whole thing. This was done deliberately. Someone instructed the person who held the pen—it was no accident.”
Gupta’s testimony implied suspicion toward civil servants, suggesting the tampering was premeditated and intended to bypass parliament. “Why would experts in law, who passed the Public Service Commission, make a mistake only in this section? This looks like a conspiracy, it was planned, and parliament was deceived,” he said.
He also revealed that if the two-year cooling-off period hadn’t been included in the final version, the bill would likely have failed in committee. Gupta said he had even received indirect threats from secretaries, who expressed resistance to the provision.
“If the two-year cooling-off period hadn’t been agreed upon in the State Affairs Committee, the bill wouldn’t have passed,” Gupta said. “I was under pressure and received indirect threats from secretaries once it became clear the bill with the provision was going forward.”
Comment