KATHMANDU: Nepal’s Federal Civil Service Bill, aimed at reforming the bureaucracy, became mired in controversy after the “cooling-off period” provision was clandestinely altered during its passage through Parliament.

The bill was unanimously endorsed by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee on May 16, 2025, under the chairmanship of Nepali Congress MP Ramhari Khatiwada. It included a two-year restriction barring retired top bureaucrats from immediately assuming constitutional, diplomatic, or political appointments.

However, during the bill’s final approval in the House of Representatives on June 29, 2025, a new clause was inserted that effectively nullified this restriction, triggering allegations of legislative tampering.

The manipulation, blamed on procedural lapses by the State Affairs Committee leadership, provoked political uproar and exposed systemic weaknesses in Nepal’s legislative process, including the undue influence of bureaucratic lobbying on lawmaking.

In response, a parliamentary probe committee was formed on July 7, 2025, led by Nepali Congress MP Jeevan Pariyar, with members from all major parties.

The committee finalized its report on August 5, 2025, holding Khatiwada and the committee’s secretary Suraj Kumar Dura responsible for the tampering.

This explainer will delve into how the tampering unfolded, who is being held accountable, and what this controversy reveals about Nepal’s legislative integrity.

What is the “cooling-off period” provision and why is it important?

The “cooling-off period” is a legal provision that bars former civil servants from immediately assuming political or government-appointed positions after retirement or resignation.

In Nepal, a two-year cooling-off period was proposed in the Federal Civil Service Bill to prevent conflicts of interest. Its purpose is to ensure that top bureaucrats, who possess extensive influence and insider knowledge, do not transition directly into powerful constitutional, diplomatic, or political roles.

Such immediate appointments could compromise public trust, foster favoritism, and erode institutional neutrality. The provision was designed as a safeguard to maintain the integrity of public administration by creating a buffer period.

Globally, many democratic systems implement similar cooling-off periods to curb revolving-door politics between bureaucracy and political power centers.

In Nepal’s context, the absence of such safeguards has historically allowed retired secretaries and chief secretaries to be rewarded with ambassadorial posts or constitutional appointments, raising concerns about undue influence.

The cooling-off clause was thus seen as a necessary reform to ensure transparency and impartiality in high-level appointments.

How was the cooling-off period included in the Federal Civil Service Bill?

When the government first tabled the Federal Civil Service Bill in Parliament, it did not include any provision regarding a cooling-off period for former civil servants. However, during clause-by-clause deliberations in the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties raised concerns about the revolving-door appointments of retired bureaucrats.

As a result, they introduced and unanimously passed a two-year cooling-off provision under Clause 82 (Sub-clause 4) of the committee’s report. This clause explicitly restricted former secretaries and high-ranking bureaucrats from holding constitutional, diplomatic, or government-nominated posts for two years post-retirement or resignation.

The inclusion was hailed as a significant legislative improvement that would foster bureaucratic accountability and institutional independence. The committee’s unanimous decision was considered a rare instance of cross-party consensus on administrative reform.

However, this provision was later found to be tampered with during the bill’s final passage in the House, leading to a major controversy.

What exactly happened during the bill’s passage that sparked controversy?

The controversy arose when the Federal Civil Service Bill, passed by the House of Representatives on June 29, 2025, contained a subtle yet crucial alteration.

Although Clause 82 (4) still mentioned a two-year cooling-off period, Sub-clause 5 was inserted with a clause stating, “except for appointments to constitutional positions, diplomatic posts, and government-nominated positions.”

This insertion effectively nullified the cooling-off provision, allowing former top bureaucrats to bypass the restriction. The use of a single word, “except” (“bahek”), reversed the intent of the cooling-off period.

This amendment was not discussed or endorsed by the committee, sparking suspicions of deliberate tampering. Lawmakers realized after the bill was passed that the provision had been diluted, leading to an uproar. The insertion was seen as a blatant case of legislative fraud, where the bill’s language was manipulated during technical drafting without the knowledge or approval of Parliament members.

What actions did the Parliament take in response to the controversy?

Amid growing political and public pressure, the Parliament established a seven-member Special Inquiry Committee on July 7, 2025, to investigate the unauthorized changes in the Federal Civil Service Bill.

The committee included representatives from major parties: two MPs each from Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, and one each from the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Maoist Center, and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP).

Nepali Congress MP Jeevan Pariyar was appointed as the coordinator. Initially given 21 days to complete its work, the committee conducted thorough hearings to determine the circumstances surrounding the tampering.

The formation of this committee reflected the urgency to restore public trust and parliamentary integrity. Meanwhile, parliamentary leadership promised to address the flawed provisions during further legislative review.

Who were identified as responsible for the tampering of the bill?

The special investigation committee that examined the tampering in the Federal Civil Service Bill’s report identified several individuals and offices as responsible for including language that effectively nullified the two-year cooling-off period for former government employees after resignation or retirement.

Legally, the committee named Ramhari Khatiwada, Chairperson of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, and Suraj Kumar Dura, the committee secretary, as primarily accountable, holding them morally responsible.

Khatiwada, being a political figure, was held politically and morally responsible, while Dura was deemed morally responsible for mismanagement, including improper minute preparation.

The report also highlighted indirect involvement of representatives from the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, although their names were not disclosed; these were understood to be lower-level officials below secretaries.

Furthermore, the roles of the Government of Nepal’s Chief Secretary, the secretaries of the Federal Affairs Ministry, Law Ministry, and the Prime Minister’s Office legal secretary were reviewed but not named.

The Chief Secretary, Eknarayan Aryal, openly opposed the cooling-off provision and was found by the committee to have lobbied against it, including meetings with key political leaders to remove the clause, actions deemed inappropriate conduct.

Other officials indirectly implicated included current Federal Affairs Secretary Rabilal Panta, former Law Ministry Secretary Udayaraj Sapkota, and legal secretary Phanindra Gautam of the Prime Minister’s Office.

The investigation concluded that the collective pressure exerted to remove the cooling-off clause and refusal to endorse official statements constituted misconduct.

How did Ramhari Khatiwada respond to the Special Inquiry Committee’s report holding him morally responsible?

After the Special Inquiry Committee’s report criticized the “cooling-off period” clause alteration and named him morally responsible, Ramhari Khatiwada stated that he had not yet fully reviewed the report and would decide on the next steps after consulting with party leadership.

He reaffirmed his support for including the cooling-off period from the start and emphasized that, although he signed the bill’s report as committee chair, many others also played roles in the process.

Khatiwada pointed out that the responsibility for removing or retaining such clauses lies with the Ministry of Law and related bodies, and ultimately the entire Parliament approves legislation.

He argued that since the bill was open for 15 days in the House of Representatives, all members had a chance to review it. Despite this, Khatiwada expressed willingness to take responsibility as the committee chair.

He highlighted that since the committee’s formation, he has refrained from convening meetings, returned government perks, and demonstrated ethical conduct throughout the investigation period.

What was the political reaction after the tampering incident came to light?

The revelation of tampering triggered widespread political outrage. Lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties accused the State Affairs Committee leadership of betraying the legislative process.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai condemned it as “one of the most disgraceful political frauds in the world.”

Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa, Rastriya Janamorcha’s Chitra Bahadur KC, and CPN-UML’s Surya Thapa criticized the procedural deceit, demanding accountability from those involved.

The incident was seen as a stark example of how bureaucratic lobbying can manipulate Parliament for self-serving interests. Critics compared it to “selling dog meat while showing a goat’s head,” implying a complete mockery of legislative integrity.

Public discourse shifted towards questioning the credibility of the Parliament and its ability to protect the spirit of laws passed through consensus. There were calls for stringent reforms to prevent such manipulations and ensure legislative transparency in the future.

What is the current status of the Federal Civil Service Bill after the tampering incident?

Following the controversy, the Federal Civil Service Bill has been forwarded to the National Assembly for further deliberations.

Speaker Devraj Ghimire indicated that the National Assembly could amend the tampered clause, restoring the intended two-year cooling-off period. However, the ultimate resolution depends on whether the National Assembly exercises its authority to rectify the provision and whether the House of Representatives will approve such amendments during the final bill reconciliation process.

The incident has become a litmus test for the legislative integrity of Nepal’s Parliament. Civil society and legal experts have called for robust amendments to restore the bill’s credibility.

The controversy has also spurred wider debates on the need for procedural reforms within Parliament to prevent future instances of bill manipulation.

Until the Upper House takes decisive corrective action, the fate of the cooling-off period remains uncertain, though public pressure is mounting on lawmakers to restore the provision.