Allegation on General Secretary Pandey for manipulation in committee formation to investigate cooling period

Kathmandu – Members of a special parliamentary committee have concluded that General Secretary of the Parliament, Padma Pandey, manipulated the formation process of the committee that was set up to investigate alleged irregularities related to the inclusion of a “cooling period” in the Federal Civil Service Bill.

The special committee was formed on Monday under Rule 180 of the House of Representatives’ Rules of Procedure. However, members of the committee have warned that they will only proceed with their work if the decision—seen as an attempt to weaken the committee—is corrected.

Although parliamentary practice and provisions dictate that such committees formed under Rule 180 should have a “Chairperson,” General Secretary Pandey had instead proposed a “Coordinator,” and Speaker of the House read out the proposal accordingly. Congress MP Jeevan Pariyar was appointed as the coordinator of the seven-member committee.

In its meeting on Wednesday, the committee concluded that there is a significant difference between the terms “Chairperson” and “Coordinator.” A committee member informed Desh Sanchar that a meeting has been scheduled with Speaker Devraj Ghimire at 11 a.m. on Thursday to draw attention to this issue.

A committee member explained, “Although the terms may sound similar, there’s a substantial difference. If we use ‘Coordinator’ instead of ‘Chairperson,’ the committee’s status is reduced to that of a mere task force. Its directives would not be binding. There seems to be ill intent in calling it a special committee while denying it a chairperson. This looks like a deliberate attempt to weaken the committee from the outset, so we’re drawing the Speaker’s attention to correct it.”

Even though members raised the issue with Speaker Ghimire during their first meeting, General Secretary Pandey responded by saying, “It’s the same thing, it makes no difference,” according to another committee member. The fact that Pandey himself responded on behalf of the Speaker has made committee members suspicious of his role.