Print Edition - 2017-01-11 | News
What will happen to facilities enjoyed by ‘unfit’ Karki?
- Many say it’s more about propriety than what perks he was entitled to
Jan 11, 2017-Two days after the Supreme Court (SC) annulled Lokman Singh Karki’s appointment as the chief commissioner of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), declaring him unfit to hold the post, questions are being raised about the facilities he had enjoyed. And more than that, there are issues related to propriety.
Karki served as the chief commissioner of the CIAA for three years and nine months. Apart from salary he drew, he was entitled to various perks and benefits in capacity of the head of the constitutional body.
Questions over the facilities Karki had enjoyed are now being raised because the court has not only removed him from the post but also ruled that his appointment itself was flawed, saying “he is unfit to hold the post”.
Advocate Om Prakash Aryal, who had challenged Karki’s appointment as the CIAA chief saying “he does not qualify to hold the post”, said nothing can be said about the facilities Karki enjoyed as the chief of the anti-graft body, as the
court has not said anything about it.
“Had the court ruled that the facilities he had enjoyed should be revoked from the very beginning, he would have to return them,” said Aryal.
If no action is initiated on the facilities Karki had enjoyed, will he be entitled to pension?
Surya Nath Upadhyaya, former chief commissioner of the CIAA, said Karki cannot enjoy state facilities and perks as an official retired from a constitutional body because the court has “disqualified” him as the CIAA chief.
As per the Act on Remuneration, Terms and Condition of Facilities for the Officials of Constitutional Bodies, these officials are entitled to remuneration for the period they have served and remuneration of one additional month after retirement, irrespective of any reason of retirement.
However, some experts say Karki’s story—his appointment, his activities as the chief commissioner of the anti-graft body and the court ruling annulling his appointment and declaring him unfit to hold the post—should be viewed more as a propriety issue rather than what facilities he enjoyed as the chief of the CIAA.
Sunday’s was landmark ruling from the apex court, as it has been for the first time a bench has dismissed the chief of a constitutional body on the premise that the person in question “did not qualify to hold the post”.
The apex court ruling can serve as a precedent that will require the government and political parties to make propriety the cornerstone of such appointments.
In its order to the government, the bench has clearly asked to appoint “a person qualified as per the constitution as the chief of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority”.
Published: 11-01-2017 07:07