The Public Service Commission suggested to the concerned authorities of the Government of Nepal to initiate departmental action against 106 civil servants during the fiscal 2017-18.
According to Section 68 of the Civil Service Act, if it appears that the defence submitted or the explanation furnished by the concerned civil employee in the course of action on departmental punishment is not satisfactory and punishment is to be imposed on such employee, the official empowered to issue order of departmental punishment must propose the punishment intended to be imposed on that employee and seek consultation of the PSC.
The annual report of 2017-18 stated that the PSC was informed about departmental action taken against 64 of 106 employees by the concerned authorities during the period.
Of the employees suggested for action, 94 are males and 12 females. In terms of their class, 57 are gazetted, 36 are non-gazetted and 13 are classless civil servants.
Employees working under the Ministry of Forests and Environment top the chart with 29 followed by the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (22); the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation (14); the Ministry of Health and Population (10); the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (9); the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (6); the Ministry of Urban Development (4); the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies (4); the Ministry of Home Affairs (3); the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (2); and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security and Ministry of Energy, Water Resource and Irrigation (1 each).
Of the 106 unethical employees, 38 were suggested for warning, 36 for dismissal from service without being disqualified to hold government position in future and two for dismissal from service with being disqualified to hold government position in future. Likewise, PSC suggested withholding salary of 24 and halting promotion of six.
Those facing departmental action were found to have failed to perform the duties or responsibilities of his/her post, frequently violated the ethical conducts, committed acts of indiscipline, neglected responsibilities, remained absent from office continuously for 90 days without having their leave sanctioned, convicted by court of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and involved in corruption, among others.