Criminal Liability For Corruption In Police Recruitment
Legal Framework
In Nepal, corruption in police recruitment can implicate several legal provisions:
The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act: prohibits abuse of authority, taking/bribing, favouritism in public service.
The Penal Code of Nepal: offences such as accepting or giving bribes, abuse of official position, fraud, criminal conspiracy.
Public Service Commission statutes: recruitment must follow transparent, fair process – deviations may amount to criminal misconduct.
International norms: including the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) which Nepal is party to, requiring states to criminalise corruption in public service.
When corruption happens in police recruitment it often involves: bribery (candidates paying for posts), nepotism/favouritism, leaking of question papers, manipulation of results, impersonation/cheating. These actions not only corrupt the recruitment process but undermine the integrity of the police service.
Case Studies
Case 1: Impersonation in Police Recruitment (Kathmandu, 2025)
Facts: At an exam centre in Kathmandu (Ratna Rajya School, New Baneshwor) for a police recruitment exam conducted by the Nepal Police, several individuals from various districts (Dolakha, Dailekh, Jumla, Surkhet) were arrested for taking the exam under other candidates’ identities — using another person’s admit card, documents.
Legal Issues: This is fraud/cheating in recruitment of police personnel, which constitutes criminal misconduct. It also triggers corruption‑related liability: the scheme likely involved payment/benefit to impersonators or insiders. It undermines the integrity of the recruitment process.
Outcome: The suspects were taken into police custody and investigations are ongoing.
Key Points:
Even impersonation (cheating) becomes a criminal matter in recruitment of police.
The recruitment system’s integrity is compromised when identity checks fail; responsibility lies with both the individual and the officials supervising the process.
Though not yet terminated in a full conviction (at least publicly reported), the initiation of investigations signals accountability.
Case 2: CIAA Probe Into Constable Recruitment (Dipayal, 2023/24)
Facts: In the region of Dipayal, a team of the CIAA seized files relating to constable recruitment by the regional police office, including physical test results, medical checks, written and oral exam records. Allegations were that officers had accepted bribes (between Rs 25,000 to Rs 150,000) from candidates for selection.
Legal Issues: These are classic bribery/favouritism cases in recruitment: officers abusing their office to permit unqualified candidates in exchange for money. It engages the CIAA Act (abuse of authority), Penal Code (bribery/accepting undue advantage), and recruitment statutes.
Outcome: The CIAA launched investigations; removing records and signalling serious action. (Public reporting shows investigation rather than final convictions.)
Key Points:
Recruitment corruption often happens at the lower levels (constable selection) but has wide impact.
Money changing hands to secure police posts is criminal both for the giver (candidate) and the taker (officer).
The seizure of records demonstrates the role of investigative bodies like the CIAA.
Case 3: Recruitment Exam Fraud – Student Leader Arrest (Kathmandu, 2025)
Facts: A student leader of a campus union (FSU) was arrested for appearing in a police recruitment exam on behalf of another candidate, i.e., impersonation/fraud. Five more candidates from different districts were also arrested.
Legal Issues: Similar to Case 1: impersonation, abuse of exam process, corrupt advantage. Additionally, the connection with a politically‑affiliated student union suggests possible network of influence.
Outcome: Arrests made; disciplinary action (removal from union leadership) reported. Full judicial outcome may still be pending.
Key Points:
Recruitment corruption can be politically embedded, involving student leaders or party‑affiliated persons.
The network dimension: impersonation schemes often involve multiple actors and possibly insiders in the recruitment system or exam centres.
Arrests (even before conviction) send deterrence signals, but final accountability remains critical.
Case 4: Comparative Example – Police SI Recruitment Scam (India)
Facts: Although in India (Assam), a major recruitment scam in which a former Deputy Inspector General (DIG) was accused of being mastermind in a police Sub‑Inspector recruitment scam: question‑paper leak, candidates paying bribes, impersonation, irregular selection. He was arrested in Nepal after fleeing.
Legal Issues: Shows that corruption in police recruitment is a trans‑national issue; the mastermind used Nepal as a hide‑out. It involves fraud, bribery in public service recruitment, misuse of official position.
Outcome: Arrest of key accused; investigation underway.
Key Points:
Trans‑boundary connections: corrupt actors may exploit cross‑border jurisdictions.
Nepal’s jurisdiction may become relevant when fugitives from other countries hide in Nepal, thus complicating accountability.
The case reinforces that police recruitment corruption is not just a minor administrative matter, but large‑scale criminal conspiracy.
Case 5: (Hypothetical/Reported) Recruitment Irregularities in Nepal Police Constables
Facts: Reports indicate that in multiple recruitment rounds for Nepal Police constables, there were allegations of favouritism, illegally accepted payments, manipulation of medical/physical tests, and omission of deserving candidates. Some of these were flagged by the CIAA and media.
Legal Issues: Abuse of official position, bribery, criminal conspiracy, undermining merit‑based public service recruitment.
Outcome: In some cases, files seized, investigations launched; but publicly detailed convictions are less frequent, pointing to enforcement gaps.
Key Points:
Systems vulnerabilities: recruitment processes susceptible to manipulation (physical test, medical, written exam, interview).
Even where investigations launched, convictions are fewer — showing enforcement challenges.
Corruption erodes public trust in police, and creates a cadre with compromised legitimacy.
Key Legal Principles & Challenges
Criminal liability attaches to both givers and takers: Candidates who bribe and officers who accept bribes are both criminally liable.
Official abuse of recruitment process is a serious offence: The recruitment of police officers (public servants) is a state function; manipulation here undermines rule of law.
Fraud/impersonation in exam/recruitment is criminal: Not just administrative misconduct but punishable under fraud/cheating provisions.
Investigative and prosecutorial independence is essential: Bodies like CIAA must be able to act without interference.
Conviction rates remain low: Though many investigations launched, fewer reported convictions — pointing to systemic enforcement issues.
Political interference and patronage complicate accountability: Recruitment corruption often links to political networks, making transparency and impartiality harder to maintain.
Deterrence and reform required: Beyond prosecution, recruitment systems need transparency, audit trails, independent oversight to prevent recurrence.
Conclusion
Corruption in police recruitment is a distinct form of corruption with serious implications: it affects the quality, legitimacy and integrity of the police force and by extension, public trust in law enforcement. The cases above – ranging from impersonation, bribery, favouritism, exam fraud – show that Nepal has multiple instances of such misconduct, and that criminal liability is possible. However, enforcement remains patchy, and much more work is needed to ensure that recruitment corruption is reliably detected, prosecuted and penalised.
RELATED Blog
comments