|
Short synopsis of the report |
A
study commissioned by ESP/DfID-funded and Pro Public-implemented
'Civil Society Anti-corruption
Project' (CSACP) and carried out by the 'Institute
of Local Governance Studies' (InLoGoS) |
| Corruption
and misuse of power is a phenomenon that has been
prevailing throughout the world since time immemorial
and Nepal has not been an exception. A Civic Code
(Muluki Ain) enacted by the then prime minister
Jung Bahadur Rana in 1854 AD was probably the first
of its kind. After the overthrow of Rana regime
and the advent of multiparty system in BS 2007,
a "Prevention of Corruption Act, 2009"
was enacted to institutionalize anti-corruption
drive. This was followed by the enactment of a "Civil
Service Act, 2013" for civil servants and the
establishment of a Public Service Commission (PSC).
After the restoration of multiparty democracy
in BS 2046, a provision was made in the then Constitution
for a "Commission for Investigation of Abuse
of Authority" (CIAA) with its defined functions,
duties and authority. Recommendation for Departmental
Action (DA) is one of the several actions that
the CIAA takes after investigation of the complaints
relating to the abuse of authority by public servants.
The concerned department or the authorized person
of the government is ultimately responsible to
implement DA against the civil servants who are
governed by the Civil Service Act, 2049. Whether
the departmental action suggested gets implemented
or not is a different question.
The Civil Service Act, 2049 has specified two
types of Departmental Actions (DA) that are applicable
to the government employees. The DA referred to
in this study is the action against the public
personnel involved in improper conduct as recommended
by CIAA to the concerned department or public
agency after investigation on the complaint including
the action initiated by the competent authorities
under the provision of CSA and other service Acts.
These departments or public agencies have to follow
the procedure prescribed in their respective service
rules and the respective Personnel Administration
Rules in case of other autonomous public agencies
or the government undertakings.
The study has revealed that the existence of
inter-organizational conflict among authorized
officials of the government, the Public Service
Commission, the Administrative Court, and the
CIAA has adversely affected the effective and
timely implementation of DAs. Its main findings,
among others, are:
|
 |
there
is no updated DA recording system in the ministries,
departments and district offices. |
|
authorities
in the districts are not enthusiastic in dealing
with the cases of DA; Chief District Officers (CDOs)
are not enthusiastic to exercise the authority delegated
by CIAA. |
|
the
authorities are found reluctant to take even a simple
action for breaching of code of conduct because
of lengthy and complex processes required to complete
the DA. |
|
the
general sympathetic tendency of the employees and
others mostly being with the accused, the authorities
seem reluctant to take DA. |
|
no
training and orientation are provided to the officials
regarding their authority and procedures for DA
and hence little attention is paid to section 59
A (1 & 2) of CSA and Regulation 106. |
|
in
the last seven years, CIAA has recommended 183 cases
for departmental actions, whereas the total number
of cases referred to the Public Service Commission
(PSC) for its consultations were 1273. |
|
according
to the annual report of CIAA (04/05) there were
66 cases under implementation. One of the cases
was initiated in the year 1993, and is still in
process despite the fixed time of 3 months prescribed
for completing the process of DA after the receipt
of the recommendations of CIAA. |
|
out
of the total number of consultation (1,522 cases)
provided by the PSC, only 48% of the total (612
cases) have been recorded in Department of Personnel
Record (Nijamati-Kitabkhana). |
|
the
main cause of the delay in implementing DAs is the
bureaucratic formalities that have to be completed
in getting consultation from PSC. |
|
the
role of Administrative Court (AC) is limited to
hearing the appeal of those offenders who are removed
from their job. The recent amendment of CSA has
authorized AC to hear appeal for all kinds of punishments.
According to the statement provided by Appellate
Court more than 80% of the cases are lost by the
Competent Authorities. The concerned Competent Authorities
do not appeal to higher Courts to defend their decisions.
|
|
MoGA
seems passive for developing procedure and mechanism
on DA monitoring; there is an urgent need of a manual
on code of conduct in order to avoid subjective
decisions. |
PDF Size 1.02 MB
Download
here
|
