32 May, Kathmandu. Physical Infrastructure and Transport Minister Raghuveer Mahaseth did not even get consent from the Ministry of General Administration on Wednesday The director general of the road department was changed . Sushilbabu Dhakal has been removed and Ramhari Pokharel has been made the Director General before the last month of the financial year, June, has started. Similarly, Ajay Kumar Mool, the head of the Postal Road Project Directorate, has been made the Director General of the Railway Department.
Pokharel has been given the responsibility of the department head at such a time, when the road department has a lot of financial and administrative work to be done at the end of the financial year. Although Pokharel who became the director general is a competent officer, the heads of various road projects are not happy that the head of the department has been changed in an unseasonal manner.
In the matter of road department work, this kind of situation is not new. Dhakal, who is currently transferred, also became the director general in February 2079 after the seasonal transfer of the then director general of the road department, Arjunjung Thapa. Physical Infrastructure Minister Narayankaji Shrestha made Dhakal, a Gorkha home district, as the Director General. Even before that, when the director general was changed in the department, such a distortion was seen.
Currently, not only the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure, but also the Ministry of Urban Development, various development ministries have started to change project heads. Urban Development Minister Dhan Bahadur Budha has recently sent Rabindra Bohora as the head of the empowered United Bagmati Civilization Development Committee. Even in this base, which is spending crores of money in the name of Bagmati, there is dissatisfaction within the ministry when the head changes at the end of the financial year.
At the end of the financial year, the government has started to change the heads of departments and projects as the rush for development work and payments continues in the development departments, bases and projects. There is a risk that a transfer made in one place will affect other bases and projects as well.
In big projects, joint secretary-level employees are often working as department and project heads, so the decision of the minister and the secretary is often disrupted. They have chosen and changed project leaders themselves.
Especially, the ministers of the coalition government with the Congress have called back those who were made heads of departments and projects, and the new ministers have started transferring them according to their interests.
Officials of the Ministry of Urban Development say that by doing this at the end of the financial year, the payments due at the end of the financial year will be affected and the net of ‘commission’ that contractors give as gifts to ministers and employees will become more complicated.
In order to stop this kind of situation, the government announced that it will also make certain criteria for the selection of project leaders in the budget statement of the current fiscal year 2080/81. However, the standard was not made. 
“Since frequent changes in the project leader will have an adverse effect on the implementation, a system will be developed to assign the project leader throughout the project period or for a certain period and change the project leader only based on performance progress,” the budget statement said. However, no ministry and agency broke the bank for this.
On the other hand, the budget that came on 15th of June, when the current financial year was not over, made the same announcements again. “In order to effectively implement the project and complete it within the specified time, the project leader will be selected based on internal competition and the criteria will be prepared and implemented so that unless the minimum score specified in the performance agreement is not achieved, the criteria will be prepared and implemented,” Finance Minister Barshman Pun said in the budget statement.
The government is continuing the past practice by using scissors to announce that the heads of development projects and agencies will not be changed randomly before the start of the next financial year. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who is leading the coalition government, is not seen to be in a position to stop such arbitrary transfers that are being made by Prachanda himself and the rules are being mixed.
The rule does not give, and also arbitrary
According to the Civil Service Regulations, the Ministry of General Administration must complete the transfer of employees from August 1 to the end of every year. There is a rule that other ministries, ministry-level central agencies or departments should be transferred within 1st October to 15th October.
State level bodies should transfer from October 16th to mid-October of every year. There is a provision that the consent of the Ministry of General Administration should be obtained in case of transfer outside of the schedule.
Currently, the transfer of project and program heads should also be based on this rule. Shiv Nepal, the former deputy director general of the road department, says that even if the responsibility is given to a qualified person, it is appropriate to transfer them within the time limit specified in the rules. “Whoever became the head of the department or the head of the project is in one place, but when the transfer is made within the specified time, it remains the same,” he said.
Nepal says that the transfer of department heads and project heads at the end of the financial year will disrupt the working environment of the projects. He said that it would take 10-12 days to inform the development partners about the change of official ‘signatory’ in foreign aid projects.
“A construction company with a boss creates an atmosphere of trust, employees trust their boss with good intentions and do some work by looking at the results rather than the process,” he says. There is a doubt that.’
After reaching the new project leader, it takes a long time to understand the project. The problem of arbitrarily sending another person as the head of the project at any time for political gain without identifying the problems of the project and not starting the improvement work is rampant.
However, project management is considered more specific than any office management. A project manager should manage the overall project along with the office. The project manager should coordinate with government agencies, prevent budget shortages, mobilize contractors, satisfy local residents, facilitate the availability of construction materials, etc. Initiatives should also be taken to clear the political and financial difficulties that come from time to time.
A lot of work needs to be done in terms of investment and payment management and coordination along with contract management in projects. Officials say that because the environment of Nepal is not comfortable, competent and skilled people should be the chief.
However, the practice is exactly the opposite. There is a preference of political and high administrative leadership in the deployment of the project chief. When choosing a project, there is a tendency of the political leadership to choose their own favorites and also to choose the project leader themselves.
There is no method or standard that can stop this trend of political leadership. “There is also a situation where the political leadership is not ready to adhere to the standards created under the Good Governance Act,” says the former Deputy Director General of the Roads Department, Nepal.
For this reason, the employees who have established relations with the political leadership remain in charge of the project for years even if they are weak in performance. Even those who work as acting chiefs are not ready to leave their positions and those who are transferred are in a position to forcefully take over.
There is a situation where some project heads who have the support of the political leadership do not even fear the departmental leadership and the secretary of the ministry. There is a lot of trouble in the department and project of people who do not communicate with the local people of the project-affected areas, try to make unnecessary variations in the project in collaboration with contractors who do not work, and do not report well in the department. There are some who do not work with the ministers and the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, but there are those who stay for a long time in the projects that are considered attractive.
The prime minister’s office and secretariat, top leaders of major parties, chief ministers, ministers, high-ranking employees are making many appearances to prevent and prevent the transfer of departmental and project heads. There is also a situation where the ministry should be innocent in terms of appointing and transferring project heads.
Since the consent of the political leadership is basically required before the transfer, the project heads take the top leaders of the party along with them and divert the ministers from spontaneous decisions. No one is interested in this because ministers, secretaries and heads of departments cannot arbitrarily appoint and transfer project heads if clear standards are made.
There is a process of changing and stopping the leadership of the project without any conditions for allowing the work to be done for a period of time and calling it back if the work is not according to the target.
Bizok of projects
As departmental and project heads are not responsible, the progress of about 1,000 projects including highway expansion, bridges, large buildings, railways, airports, hydropower, transmission lines, and irrigation is not satisfactory.
However, the government is reluctant to make standards for project leaders who can do well in preparation, contractor mobilization, facilitation and coordination.
Due to the tendency of political and administrative leadership to appoint project heads, assign them and continue even if the work is not according to the target, there is a shortage of responsible officers in the projects.
A situation has been created where only those who can please the Minister, Secretary and head of the department become the project head and do not have to be accountable even when the projects are problematic.
After the number of projects that could not be completed on time exceeded two thousand, the government introduced a plan to appoint project heads from outside the civil service on the basis of competition in the financial year 2076/77. After opposition from the employees, the government did not want to go ahead with this plan.
However, this year, the budget has announced that internal competition will be held from the civil service. However, the employees do not believe that the government will choose the project leader through competition, which has not been implemented even though there is a system for performance evaluation.
Not only to select the project leader, but also to change the prescribed methods are not being used. The Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act 2064 provides that any work to be done by the government must be done within a certain period and certain achievements must be achieved. Similarly, if there is a national priority program or project to be implemented, there is a provision that a performance contract can be entered into with an official.
In the performance agreement letters, the results to be achieved are indicated, in which the overall status of the last financial year and the target of the current financial year are determined. The main work to be done and its duration are specified in the contract.
As mentioned in the action plan, there is no practice of rewarding the project leader who achieves progress and changing the responsibilities of those who do not achieve progress according to the target.
While performance evaluation is a ritual, the culture of assigning responsibility on the basis of work has not yet been developed. On the other hand, when project heads are frequently transferred due to political interests, the possibility of the new head taking responsibility for the work already done in the project is low.
The government is not aware that the passion, energy and spirit to work in a new place will die after alienating them from what they have agreed with. If the policy of assigning responsibilities and transferring them based on performance evaluation is made, the government is not interested in making the civil service result-oriented. Due to the fact that they are getting discounts even when they are not working, the tendency of employees to focus only on pleasing the leader and secretary is increasing.
The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority released its 33rd annual report last November and instructed the government to develop a predictable posting and transfer system and implement it. The commission said in the report, “Not to transfer employees before the completion of the period specified by the Civil Service Act, and to recommend departmental action to the officials who make arbitrary transfers, and to recover the additional expenses incurred by the state from the officials who transferred them”.
Infrastructure expert Suryaraj Acharya comments that the government has not paid attention to the problems seen in the implementation of the project and is confused by not being able to break the indolence of the employees. He said that not only the implementation of the project but also the quality of the work should be looked at, he said that not only the project leader but also the way of looking at the development should be changed. Acharya says, “If we let people with knowledge and experience in the related subject look at the project, such problems can be reduced by a few percent”.
In order to speed up the projects, attention should be paid not only to staff administration but also to increase the performance of contractors and consultants. Research should be prioritized in engineering colleges. We should think about making our engineers really competent’, says Acharya.
