Two Complaints Filed in Parliamentary Committee Against Proposed Canada Ambassador, Paudyal

Two complaints have been formally filed with the parliamentary hearing committee against the proposed appointment of Bharat Raj Paudyal as the Nepali Ambassador to Canada. The complaints, which touch on allegations ranging from ethical concerns to questions about qualifications, have prompted the committee to initiate a thorough examination.

One of the complaints asserts that Paudyal facilitated his daughter’s education through a scholarship intended for government employees. The complaint alleges that his daughter, Pallavi Paudyal, was awarded the “Masters of Advanced Studies European and International Governance Scholarship”.

However, the complaint contends that Pallavi is a student abroad, not a government employee, raising questions about the eligibility and propriety of the scholarship allocation.

Simultaneously, a separate complaint questions Paudyal’s moral standing, though specific details regarding the nature of these concerns have not been disclosed. The parliamentary hearing committee has decided to thoroughly discuss both complaints with the respective complainants before Paudyal’s scheduled hearing.

The parliamentary hearing committee has slated Paudyal’s hearing for 1 pm next Sunday, where he will have the opportunity to address the allegations and respond to the committee’s inquiries. The decision to hold a hearing reflects the seriousness with which the committee is treating these complaints.

Bharat Raj Paudyal, who currently serves as the Foreign Secretary, was recommended by the government as the next Nepali Ambassador to Canada on Kartik 15. However, the controversy surrounding the complaints has cast a shadow over his suitability for the ambassadorial role.

One of the complaints further argues that the process of appointing ambassadors from the foreign service should prioritize individuals with remaining service periods. This complaint suggests that the government may be favoring those on the verge of retirement, citing Paudyal’s retirement scheduled for Mangsir 20. It questions the timing of Paudyal’s nomination, suggesting that opportunities should be given to diplomats who still have significant service time left.

As the parliamentary hearing committee prepares to delve into these allegations, the controversy surrounding Bharat Raj Paudyal’s nomination continues to unfold, raising questions about the transparency and ethical considerations in the appointment process.