The role of bureaucracy in upholding governance and ensuring checks and balances on political leadership is paramount. However, Energy Secretary Suresh Acharya’s actions—or lack thereof—raise critical questions about his ability to fulfill this responsibility. Under the watch of Minister Deepak Khadka, the Energy Ministry appears to have devolved into a hub of irregularities, with Secretary Acharya playing a complicit role.

From distributing checks to sway tender processes for the 106 MW Jagdulla Hydropower Project to bypassing legal protocols, Minister Khadka’s office has been mired in controversy. Yet, Secretary Acharya, who holds the authority to check such activities, has remained a silent observer, if not an enabler.

Complicity in Irregularities

One glaring instance of Acharya’s ineffectiveness is his failure to challenge Minister Khadka’s decision to form a three-member committee to amend NEA’s billing practices. Despite the legal mandate resting solely with the Electricity Regulatory Commission or courts, Acharya did not oppose this unlawful directive. Instead, he endorsed it, allowing the Minister’s unchecked interference to undermine institutional integrity.

Even more concerning was the NEA Managing Director Kulman Ghising’s resistance to providing data for the committee, citing its lack of legitimacy. Rather than supporting Ghising’s stance to uphold institutional authority, Acharya sided with the Minister, further eroding trust in the ministry’s leadership.

A Secretary Reduced to a Political Ally

Acharya’s role has increasingly resembled that of a political aide rather than a senior bureaucrat. His failure to question Minister Khadka’s extravagant and legally dubious decision to set up a private office in the NEA building highlights his inability to maintain bureaucratic integrity. Such submissiveness not only sets a dangerous precedent but also undermines the morale of civil servants tasked with ensuring good governance.

A Legacy of Missed Opportunities

The Energy Ministry, often regarded as one of the most influential portfolios, has served as a platform for many secretaries to distinguish themselves. Figures like Shital Babu Regmi, Anup Kumar Upadhyaya and Dinesh Kumar Ghimire left lasting legacies by driving reform and innovation. In stark contrast, Acharya’s tenure appears to be defined by missed opportunities and complicity in wrongdoing.

His background in tourism and lack of experience in the energy sector may partially explain his struggle to navigate the complexities of the ministry. However, the fundamental issue lies in his apparent unwillingness to assert his authority as the ministry’s chief administrative officer.

A Bureaucracy in Crisis

Secretary Acharya’s actions—or inactions—reflect a broader crisis within Nepal’s bureaucracy. As civil servants increasingly prioritize political appeasement over their legal and ethical responsibilities, the foundations of governance weaken. Acharya’s tenure in the Energy Ministry serves as a stark reminder of what happens when bureaucrats fail to act as custodians of governance and accountability.

With less than 11 months until his retirement, Acharya has little to lose by standing against Minister Khadka’s irregularities. Yet, his continued complicity signals an unwillingness to embrace the responsibilities of his position. Acharya’s legacy risks being remembered as one of subservience rather than leadership—an unfortunate chapter in the Energy Ministry’s history.

As the controversy surrounding the Jagdulla Hydropower Project intensifies and the parliamentary committees and CIAA increase pressure on Minister Khadka, Secretary Acharya must decide whether he will continue to serve as a political accessory or reclaim his role as a guardian of governance. The choice he makes in these final months will shape not only his legacy but also the integrity of Nepal’s civil service.