this report by Bajendra Basnet on corruption in the Nepalese Army. There seems to be an effort to treat senior officials gently. Excerpt:
Generally, the Military Summary Court looks after the [internal] cases of the Nepal Army.
The Court consists of a judge from the High Court, yet, the decision making procedure is largely internal there.
The decisions and the punishments are all internal. According to the provisions, the party that is not satisfied with the decision can take the case to the Supreme Court for appeal.
But, as the party cannot enjoy the amenities like pensions and medical treatment until the final verdict, most of them do not want to take their dissatisfaction with the court.
Article 239 of the Constitution has the provisions related to the functions, duties and rights of Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority [CIAA].
Clause 69 of the Army Act 2006 has the provisions related to the decision to proceed with a case in Court Martial or other courts.
Sub-clause 2 of Clause 69 says, “If a case is to be filed to another court, the accused shall be suspended from service and handed over to court where the case has been registered.”
However, this is not in practice so far. That’s why whether it’s in the case of [Prayag Jung] Rana, Bhupal Man Adhikari, or any others, the verdicts are made in such a way that the alleged get the least to pay for the crime.
Interestingly, although the alleged in other cases have to pay the sum same as or double of the loss, damage, or misuse, the alleged in NA are never made to pay back.
They entertain amnesty. Besides, there is a precedent that says just because the person is retired or suspended, CIAA may not get the jurisdiction to sue the NA officials.