*dr. syed mussawar hussain bukhari, - journal …journal-archieves33.webs.com/709-726.pdf(a...

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

709

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Institutional Analysis of Ombudsman: (A Comparative Study of Pakistan, India, UK and USA)

*Dr. Syed Mussawar Hussain Bukhari,

**Muhammad Asif

Abstract:

Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial authority in criminal justice system and performs the duty of inquiry

and investigation like Mohtasibs in Pakistan, Lokpals and Lokayuktas in India, Parliamentary

Commissioner in UK and USA Ombudsmen. This paper examines a comparative analysis of structures

and performance of two developed country’s ombudsmen like Parliamentary Ombudsman in England,

Hawai`i State Ombudsman (USA), and two under developing countries like the Mohtasib-e-Punjab

(Pakistan) and Haryana State Lokayukta (India). Data for this research is collected through secondary

sources like journals, books, annual reports and legal documents etc. The paper also evaluates the

autonomy and effectiveness of these four ombudsmen institutions, analyzes all complaint’s history and

reveals that the developing country’s ombudsmen have more autonomy and less efficiency and

effectiveness in complaint resolving then developed country’ ombudsmen. The paper suggests that the

reasonable resources and proper awareness leads the Punjab and Haryana ombudsman to efficient and

effective institute while Parliamentary Ombudsman and Hawai`i State have more powers and

autonomy. There is a definite need to review the entire system and need for reforms for that success.

Keywords: Ombudsman, Mohtasib-e-Punjab, Lokayukta, Parliamentary Commissioner, Hawaii

Ombudsperson, Performance Review.

*Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Islamia University Bahawalpur, Adjunct

Research Fellow Faculty of Arts, Monash University Melbourne Australia

** Research Student of MPA, Department of Political Science, Islamia University Bahawalpur

ijcrb.webs.com



710

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Introduction:

It is the duty of a state to perform the functions of legislative, executive and judiciary. The

Constitutions of democratic set up clearly define these functions. The legislature has to make the laws.

The executive has to execute or implements these laws and the judiciary interprets and applies these

laws. Judiciary has authority to pertain the office of a judge and this authority relates to hearing and

determining the questions in controversy. Further, this judicial authority includes Court and appellate

Court.

The word ombudsman is derived from a Swedish word ‘ombuds’ that means the grievance man or

complaint officer. It is a quasi-judicial administrative authority for criminal justice system to protect

the public from any mal-administration done by public servants or public agencies. This institution,

however, is very old and originates from the Arab "Mohtasib" the roots of which go back to the times

of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W) in the 7th century. When the second Caliph Hazrat Umar (R.A),

who followed the Prophet in 640 as a guardian of public morals. Caliph Omar was ambitious to ensure

the observance of religious principles one of them was Justice in routine life, gave the concept of Qadi-

al-Qadat (judge of judges), and established an office of Diwan al-Mazalim. Sweden was the first

country who establishes this institution in 1809. In Pakistan, this institution established in 1983, India

in 2011 that extend to the whole country after Lokpal Act 2011, UK in 1967 and in USA state level

ombudsman introduced in 1967. Ombudsman office; in these countries plays different roles and

functions. This paper examines a comparative analysis of structures and performance of two developed

country’s ombudsmen like Parliamentary Ombudsman in England, Hawai`i State Ombudsman (USA),

and two developing countries like the Mohtasib-e-Punjab (Pakistan) and Haryana State Lokayukta

(India).

The reasons behind choosing the Punjab Ombudsman office, is population and political non-

interference. It is the highest population province in Pakistan. Its population estimated to be 93,963,240

in 2012. About in 16 Indian states, Lokayukta is established, 11 of them are working properly and

other’s acts have passed only. Although the Haryana State Lokayukta started its working in 2006, yet

its performance is better as compared to the other states of India. England is the most divers region as

compare to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its total population according to 2011 census is

53,012,456. About 85% are white while remaining 15% people are from other ethnic groups like

Pakistanis, Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Africans, Caribbean, and Bangladeshis. Among them 59% of total

population is Christians and 41% belongs to other religions. (UK Census, 2011). Like England Hawai`i

is also the most diverse state in US. Its estimated population in 2012 is 1,392,313 in which only 26%

peoples belong to white and remaining 74% are belongs to other regions. Among those 74.0 % other

ethnic groups; 38.5% are Asian. (United States Census Bureau, 2012)

ijcrb.webs.com



711

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

The paper is structured into three parts. The first phase is the introduction, hypothesis and

methodology, literature review is also discussed as a second component of the study. The third segment

examines structural and functional comparison, testing hypothesis and concludes the article.

Hypothesis of the Study can be discussed as under:

H1:

The developed countries ombudsmen have more autonomy and powers as compared to

developing countries ombudsmen?

H1o:

The developed countries ombudsmen have less autonomy and powers as compared to developing

countries ombudsmen?

H2:

The developed country’s ombudsmen are more efficient and effective in resolving complaints than

the under developing countries ombudsmen?

H2o:

The developed country’s ombudsmen are not more efficient and effective in resolving complaints

than the under developing countries ombudsmen?

Secondary data is used as methodology in this paper. The analysis is based on the foundation

documents of these ombudsmen institutions and the laws under which these institutes are established.

Some sections of the annual reports are also the part of this paper that highlights their performance.

Comparisons with other ombudsman institutions are also based on these reports as well as legal

documents and research journals.

Literature Review:

A number of studies have been conducted regarding the ombudsman system to check performance in

pre-describe countries. Patel (2013, pp. 1-15) argues that corruption is the main cause of the violation

of human rights and security due to Public official’s wrong doings. They damage the rule of law and

there is need of single directive to protect this violation. For this, the institution of the ombudsman is

established. Khan (2006, pp. 244-247) says that the term ombudsman is a Scandinavian originated that

translated as a grievance man or a complaint officer. It is an instrument, establishes legally to protect

citizens from the abuses of public servants. Bnerjee (2012, pp. 1-16) views it as a quasi-judicial

authority and its duty is to investigate and inquire all complaints made by the citizens of a country.

National Democratic Institute (2005, pp. 6-20) describes in its report that the basic roles performed by

the institution like protect individual, promote administrative reforms, and support the judiciary to

overcome injustice and reduced corruption. More than 120 countries have established this office with

different names and with different powers of jurisdiction for accountability. According to Yasmeen &

Ali (2011, pp. 1-12) the supremacy of rule of law is a universal obligation of every civilized society.

Every citizen born free and have legal and fundamental rights. To protect these rights judicial system of

a country plays an important role. In Pakistan, different institutions play their roles in different ways.V.

Carmona, Brillantes & Tiu Soco (2012, pp. 1-9), discuss that many of Asian countries adopt ‘New

Public Management Approach’ for decentralization and involvement of private area to improve public

service delivery. Ombudsman In these countries faced different challenges and their authority is

ijcrb.webs.com



712

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

increased from public to private sector. By Niazi (1994, pp. 302-349), in Pakistan; there are many

administrative courts and tribunals are working for accountability such as Supreme Court, High Courts,

Wafaqi Mohtasib (Federal Ombudsman), Federal Anti Corruption Committee, Courts, Assemblies,

Public Accounts Committee, Institution of audit and Accounts, Services Tribunals etc. Hussain (2010,

pp. 1-28), discusses in his report that there are eight institutions of ombudsman which are working in

Pakistan, four on federal level and four on provincial level. The federal ones are Wafaqi Mohtasib

(Federal Ombudsman), Federal Insurance Ombudsman, Federal Tax Ombudsman and Banking

Mohtasib. The other four offices established in Punjab, Sindh, Baochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Shahid & Shahid (2011, p. 134), in Pakistan, the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib established in 1983 under

the President Order No. 1. It is empowered to investigate and award compensation to those who have

suffered loss due to the poor administration of public officials. Its main concern is to manage

maladministration done by public servants and agencies. Ahmad & Qadeer (2011, pp. 15-56),

addresses about the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) and its performance. FTO resolved most of its

complaints within 74 days in 2009 and in 2010, complaints are resolved in 67 days; pending complaints

are only 5.0% and 11.3% complaints are under proceeding. Shahid (2007, pp. 402-411), found that,

since the establishment of this office, the accountability in public sector is improved and public

servants use their powers within limitation and become more cautious. It is a court for poor man and

checks the excesses of bureaucracy and it leads the country to more democratic one. Corrie

(2008, pp. 1-13) says that the continuous failure of government in passing the Lokpal bill increase

maladministration as well as decreases the public confidence and faith on bureaucracy. Since 1970, the

Lokpal bill could not pass due to the lack of political will while different states established this office

but could not achieved much success. After this, Dahra (2012, pp. 1-46) compared the historical anti-

corruption movements of India and Indonesia. In India, the national anti-corruption movement started

in 2011 and spread in the whole country to put the pressure on government to establish and empower

the Lokpal to tackle the political corruption. Garg (2012, pp. 1-10), briefly discusses the role and

importance of Lokayukta in India. It is an anti-corruption authority and handles complaints at state

level. Different state’s Lokayukta (ombudsman) has different powers of jurisdiction and punishment.

Karnataka Lokayukta has power to investigate as well as he can take action about investigated person

while the UP Lokayukta has no such power. His duty is to investigate only. Narayana, Krishnaswami &

Kumar (2011, pp. 2-12), considered the performance of Karnataka Lokayukta as a cause of

establishment of Lokpal at Country level. Karnataka Lokayukta tackles more than 60 % cases against

corruption and crimes. It considers as a successful model and needs more reforms. Kundu (2012, pp. 4-

9), built a relationship between Lokpal and corruption in governance. The need for a strong

administrative authority increased after the performance of Lokayukta of Karnataka. Two

Administrative Reforms Commissions have introduced. In second Administrative Reforms

Commission 81 recommendations are accepted, 45 rejected, 05 are partially accepted and 03 are

pending from total 134 recommendations. Several recommendations have accepted related to Lokpal

and local body’s ombudsman. According to Kumar (2012, pp. 1-17), the office of banking ombudsman

introduced in 1995 under the banking ombudsman scheme that was implemented by Reserve Bank

according to Section 35A of Banking Regulation Act 1949. Aparna (2006, pp. 1-18), evaluated that the

Banking Ombudsman under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and the Consumer Redressal

Authorities under the Consumer Protection Act both redresses the complaints received by banking

service. However, there is a difference in redressal machinery as well as in the procedure for redressal,

that make an attempt to provide the reasons, but most of consumers rely on Consumer Protection Act

instead of ombudsman and then proposed remedies for it. During the period of 1999-2004, the banking

ombudsman disposed about 98% complaints. Dake & Mathur (2012, pp. 14-22), from 2004-2009,

ijcrb.webs.com



713

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

85.60% complaints are resolved and during the year 2009-2010 38% complaints are resolved and other

remaining 38% complaints are rejected by ombudsman due to various reasons.

According to Niazi (1994, pp. 354-359), the British ombudsman, legally established in 1967 and

known as a ‘Parliamentary Commissioner’. After various reforms, the powers of commissioner

increased and its circle of jurisdiction expended. Elliot (2006, pp. 1-40), argues that political

accountability and legal accountability is the focus of judiciary. For this purpose, different courts and

tribunals are formed but the Ombudsman office, as compared to other courts and tribunals, is more

accessible. Elliot (2012, pp. 1-24), further examines the reforms of public sector ombudsmen for

England, as well as the establishment of Scottish and Wales’s ombudsman model. The adoptions of

such model in other regions are complicated by nature. Zbiral (2007, pp. 1-22), analyzes the office of

ombudsman in Scotland. Great Britain has a long history of ombudsman. However, with the end of

1990s constitutional changes process started in Britain that brought autonomy in various matters to

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One of them was the shift of opportunity to establish new

ombudsman’s office in these regions. Gay (2005, pp. 1-19), discussed about the ombudsman bill 2004

that provide the establishment of ombudsman office. That recommends powers of jurisdiction,

compensation and complaints procedures. Ferran (2002, pp. 3-35), wrote about the emergence of UK

Financial Ombudsman to inform the international debate about optimal regulatory systems. The single

statutory ombudsman scheme that will be the primary redress authority for retail consumers but it has

failed to accomplish its goal due to lack of reforms as compare to other countries. Soye

(2007, pp. 1-30), discussed about the legal barriers and ethical standards of United States Ombudsman.

About 90% of public does not trust on government officials. To gain the public trust to make the

officials accountable different states have adopted different ombudsman models like five US states

Iowa, Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska and Hawaii have general legislative ombudsman on the Swedish

model. Anderson (1993, pp. 1-8), says that the conflict resolution devices provide solutions to any

problem and these devices should be Court Judges, ombudsmen, Mediators and Conciliators.

Ombudsman is the most trustable institution that provides information, justice and bounds the

administrators to be accountable effective and efficient in their actions in US. Wallace (1993, pp. 1-4),

in recent years, United States established educational ombudsman and give the autonomy to states to

introduce it at school and university level. The participation of students leads to the better quality of

education. Culhane (1992, pp. 1-7), further discussed that the mission of student ombudsman is to

make the institution more responsible, fair, credible, and responsive to the students. It resolved the

individual problems faced by administration. The author suggests that the role of Student Ombudsman

requires a great deal of understanding, sensitivity, consistency, and sometimes courage. Harrison,

Hopeck, Desrayau & Imboden (2013, pp. 56-72), critically evaluate that the students feel the system

will be confidential if it protects them from their administration and professors, for this, an ombudsman

process is much more important than the type of ombudsman process.

Structural Comparison

The office of the Punjab Ombudsman came into existence through The Punjab Office of the

Ombudsman Act, 1997 and known as ‘Mohtasib-e-Punjab’. The Governor of Province Punjab has the

authority to appoint the ombudsman for the term of four years. Staff is appointed by government with

the advice of ombudsman while he can appoint his advisers and consultants on his own behalf. Punjab

Ombudsman does not have any jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any matters that are sub-judice

before any other Court, foreign affairs, military affairs, etc. He has the authority to investigate into any

allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of its officer or employee. He has

ijcrb.webs.com



714

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

power to punish like other High Courts in the country (The Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act,

Article 3, 4, 8, 9, 16 & 20, 1997) .

In India State Ombudsman is known as ‘Lokayukta’. The Haryana State Lokayukta established in

January 2006 under the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002. He is appointed by Governor or Lieutenant

Governor on the behalf of the President for the term of five years. He can appoint officers and staff

with the consultation of the State Government. The Lokayukta has power to investigate the record of

State Government, local authorities, corporation, society, Government Company, university, or any

college that is affiliated with university any other person who is connected with inquiry but it cannot

interfere in military and foreign policies. He can punish the guilty person with rigorous imprisonment

that may extendable to three years or with fine that may extendable to ten thousand rupees or with both

of these punishments. (The Haryana Lokayukta Act, Article 3, 6 & 19, 2002).

The Ombudsman of England is officially known as the ‘Parliamentary Commissioner’. The

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides the creation of this office. The Parliamentary

Commissioner is an independent status. He is appointed by the Crown. His Staff is appointed by the

Crown, Ministers or Members of Parliament but he can appoint officers as he may determine with the

approval of the Treasury according to the conditions of service. He has no power to entertain a

complaint direct from a citizen and comes through a member of the House of Commons. He has no any

other power except to investigate and report. He has to submit his report to the Select Committee of the

House of Commons, which analyzes it and proposes action. Members of Parliament and Ministers are

not excluded from his jurisdiction excluded certain matters such as foreign Affairs, investigation of

crimes and extradition. He is empowered to call any person for investigation and takes any document

that help him in investigation excluded Cabinet documents but he cannot implement his findings and

has no power to punish. He refers the matter to court. (Parliamentary Commissioner Act , Article 1, 3,

4 & 5, 1967).

The Hawaii State ombudsman is established in 1967 but the actual powers are assigned to him after the

Hawaii Revised Statutes 2007. His appointment procedure is very different as compares to other

ombudsmen. He is appointed by the legislature, by a majority of vote of each house in joint session for

the term of six years. He may be reappointed but may not be served for more than three terms. The

legislature, can also remove him by two-thirds vote of the members in joint session. He can appoint his

first assistant and other officers and employees necessary to carry out the responsibilities. In

determining the salary of employees, he has to consult with the department of Human Resources

development and follows as closely as possible the recommendations of the HR department. He has

jurisdiction to investigate the administrative acts of agencies and may exercise his powers without

regard to the finality of any administrative act. He can call any person and can use any document that

can help in investigation. If any complaint proves, he requests the agency to notify it within a specified

time, of any action taken on his recommendations. After a reasonable time he present his opinion and

recommendations to the legislature, the governor, the public, or refer this to the proper authorities.

(Hawaii Statutes - Chapter No. 96: The Ombudsman, 2007)

Testing Hypothesis 1:

H1:

The developed country’s ombudsmen have more autonomy and powers as compared to under

developing country’s ombudsmen?

ijcrb.webs.com



715

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

H1o:

The developed country’s ombudsmen have less autonomy and powers as compared to under

developing country’s ombudsmen?

As compare the above discussion, the result is clear. The Mohtasib-e-Punjab (Ombudsman) has powers

to punish like a High Court Judge while the Haryana Lokayukta has also authority to punish any guilty

person with fine that is extendable to ten thousands and prison of three years. However, ombudsman in

developed countries like Parliamentary Ombudsman (UK) and Hawai`i State Ombudsman (USA) have

no such powers. They have the authority to investigate only and then send their report to the concerned

authority for further actions. They have no powers to implement their recommendations. So, the null

hypothesis is accepted, that the developed country’s ombudsmen have less autonomy and powers as

compared to developing countries ombudsmen.

Performance Based Comparison:

This paper also analyzes the functionality performance of ombudsmen. It is based on past five year’s

data that shows the efficiency and effectiveness of the office in resolving complaints.

Table 1: Total Complaints History of Punjab Ombudsman from 2006-2010

Complaints Years

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Brought Forward 2440 2965 2786 6628 2636

Received 11872 13681 8997 13157 10252

Total Processed 14312 16646 11783 19785 12888

Disposed Complaints 11347 13860 5155 17149 10905

Carried Forward 2965 2786 6628 2636 1983

Source: (Punjab Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2010))

ijcrb.webs.com



716

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 1: Shows total complaints history of Mohtasib-e-Punjab (Ombudsman) in previous years from

2006-2010. In 2006, total processed complaints are 14312 through which 11347 complaints are

resolved. In 2007, total processed complaints are 16646 through which 13860 complaints are resolved.

In 2008, total processed complaints are 11783 through which 5155 complaints are resolved. In 2009,

total processed complaints are 19785 through which 17149 complaints are resolved. In 2010, total

processed complaints are 12888 through which 10905 complaints are resolved.

ijcrb.webs.com



717

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 1.1: Total Complaints History of Punjab Ombudsman from 2006-2010 with Percentage of

Overall Disposed Complaints and Per Year Disposed Complaints

Complaints Years

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Brought

Forward

2440 2965 2786 6628 2636

Received 11872 13681 8997 13157 10252

Total Processed 14312 16646 11783 19785 12888

Disposed 11347 13860 5155 17149 10905

Percentage of

Disposed

Complaints

79.2831191 83.2632 43.7495 86.6768 84.6136

Percentage of

Disposed

Complaints As

per Received

95.5778302 101.308 57.2969 130.341 106.369

Carried

Forward

2965 2786 6628 2636 1983

Table 1.1: Shows the percentage of overall disposed complaints and percentage of disposed

complaints as per year's received complaints of Punjab Ombudsman during the period from 2006-2010.

ijcrb.webs.com



718

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

The percentage of disposed complaints of these years without adding the previous year’s pending

complaints is high.

Table 2: Total Complaints History of Haryana Lokayukta (Ombudsman) from 2007-2011

Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Brought Forward 0 73 112 91 132

Received 133 178 158 210 320

Total Processed 133 251 270 301 452

Disposed 60 139 179 169 267

Carried Forward 73 112 91 132 185

Source: (Haryana State Lokayukta Annual Reports (2006-2011))

Table 2: Shows the complaints history of Haryana State Lokayukta (Ombudsman) in previous five

years from 2007-2011. From 2006-07, total processed complaints are 133 while 60 complaints are

resolved. From the period of 2007-08, total processed complaints are 251 while 139 complaints are

disposed. From 2008-09, total processed complaints are 270 while 179 complaints are resolved. From

2009-10, total processed complaints are 301 while 169 complaints are resolved. From 2010-11, total

processed complaints are 452 while 267 complaints are resolved.

ijcrb.webs.com



719

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 2.1: Total Complaints History of Haryana Lokayukta (Ombudsman) from 2007-2011 with

Percentage of Overall Disposed Complaints and Per Year Disposed Complaints

Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Received 133 178 158 210 320

Total Processed 133 251 270 301 452

Disposed 60 139 179 169 267

Percentage of

Disposed Complaints

45.112782 55.3785 66.2963 56.1462 59.0708

Percentage of

Disposed Complaints

As per Year Received

45.11278195 78.08989 113.2911 80.47619 83.4375


ijcrb.webs.com



720

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2


complaints as per year's received complaints of Haryana State Lokayukta (Ombudsman) during the

period from 2007-2011. The percentage of disposed complaints of the period 2006-07 is same because

it is the year of office’s establishment while the percentage of disposed complaints from 2008-2011

without adding the previous year’s pending complaints is high.

Table 3: Total Complaints History of Parliamentary Ombudsman from 2007-2011

Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Brought Forward 340 667 1507 2175 1600

Received 14510 12538 16307 23665 23422

Total Processed 14850 13205 17814 25840 25022

Disposed 14183 11698 15639 24240 23667

Carried Forward 667 1507 2175 1600 1355

Source: (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2011))

Table 3: Shows the overall complaints of Parliamentary Ombudsman in previous five years from 2007-

2011. From 2006-07, total processed complaints are 14850 while 14183 complaints are resolved.

During the period of 2007-08, total processed complaints are 13205 while 11698 complaints are

disposed. In the period 2008-09, total processed complaints are 17814 while 15639 complaints are

resolved. In 2009-10, total processed complaints are 25840 while 24240 complaints are resolved and

from 2010-11, total processed complaints are 25022 while 23667 complaints are resolved.

ijcrb.webs.com



721

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 3.1: Total Complaints History of Parliamentary Ombudsman from 2007-2011 with


Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Brought Forward 340 667 1507 2175 1600

Received 14510 12538 16307 23665 23422

Total Processed 14850 13205 17814 25840 25022

Disposed 14183 11698 15639 24240 23667

Percentage of

Disposed Complaints

95.5084175 88.5877 87.7905 93.808 94.5848

Percentage of

Disposed Complaints

As per Year Received

97.7463818 93.3004 95.9036 102.43 101.046

Carried Forward 667 1507 2175 1600 1355


complaints as per year’s received complaints of Parliamentary Ombudsman during the period from

2007-2011. The percentage of disposed complaints without adding the previous year’s pending

complaints is high.

ijcrb.webs.com



722

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 4: Total Complaints History of Hawaiì State Ombudsman from 2007-2011

Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Received 4501 4649 4560 4978 4686

Total Processed 4690 4818 4721 5154 4839

Disposed 4521 4657 4545 5001 4691


Source: (Hawaiì State Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2011))

Table 4: Shows the overall complaint’s status of Hawaiì State Ombudsman in previous five years

from 2007-2011. From 2006-07, total processed complaints are 4690 while 4521 complaints are

resolved. During the period of 2007-08, total processed complaints are 4818 while 4657 complaints are

disposed. In the period 2008-09, total processed complaints are 4721 while 4545 complaints are

resolved. In 2009-10, total processed complaints are 5154 while 5001 complaints are resolved and from

2010-11, total processed complaints are 4839 while 4691 complaints are resolved.

ijcrb.webs.com



723

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

Table 4.1: Total Complaints History of Hawai`i State Ombudsman from 2007-2011 with


Complaints Years

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Brought

Forward

189 169 161 176 153

Received 4501 4649 4560 4978 4686

Total Processed 4690 4818 4721 5154 4839

Disposed 4521 4657 4545 5001 4691

Percentage of

Disposed

Complaints

96.3965885 96.6584 96.272 97.0314 96.9415

Percentage of

Disposed

Complaints As

per Year

Received

100.444346 100.172 99.6711 100.462 100.107

Carried

Forward

169 161 176 153 148

ijcrb.webs.com



724

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2


complaints as per year's received complaints of Hawaiì State Ombudsman during the period from

2007-2011. The percentage of disposed complaints without adding the previous year’s pending

complaints is high.

Testing Hypothesis 2:

H2:

The developed country’s ombudsmen are more efficient and effective in resolving complaints than

the under developing country’s ombudsmen?

H2o:

The developed country’s ombudsmen are not more efficient and effective in resolving complaints

than the under developing country’s ombudsmen?

The results of table 1-4.2 show the performance of ombudsmen in developed and developing countries.

The performance of Mohtasib-e-Punjab, during the period of 2006-10, the Mohtasib-e-Punjab

(ombudsman) disposed 75.5% complaints of total processed complaints and The Haryana Lokayukta,

from 2007-11, percentage of disposed complaints was 56.4% while Parliamentary Ombudsman

performance was good and during the five year’ period he disposed 92% complaints and Hawaiì State

Ombudsman disposed 96.7% of total processed complaints. So here, the null hypothesis is rejected and

the alternate is accepted that the developed country’s ombudsmen are more efficient and effective in

resolving complaints than the developing countries ombudsmen.

Conclusion:

Ombudsman is the institution in the world that controls the maladministration done by the public

official and other agencies. It plays an important role in developed countries as well as in developing

countries. Every country has its own legal framework of this institution. In some countries, it has more

autonomy and powers, and performing effectively and efficiently but in other countries; it has authority

of investigation only. In this research the developing country’s ombudsmen like Punjab Ombudsman

and Haryana Lokayukta have more autonomy but their performance is low in complaint resolving then

developed country’ ombudsmen such as Parliamentary Ombudsman and Hawaiì State Ombudsman.

The study concludes that the lack of resources and qualified staff is the main cause of ineffectiveness

and inefficiency of Mohtasib-e-Punjab (Ombudsman) and lack of public awareness in Lokayukta of

Haryana State. The developed country’s ombudsman should be given more autonomy and powers.

The paper suggests that the reasonable resources and proper awareness leads the Punjab and Haryana

ombudsman to efficient and effective institute while Parliamentary Ombudsman and Hawaiì State

should have more powers and autonomy. There is a definite need to review the entire system and need

of reforms to bring positive results and success.

ijcrb.webs.com



725

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

References

1. Ahmad, M., & Qadeer, F. (2011). Citizen Report Card Study on Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan.

Tranparency international Pakistan.

2. Anderson, S. (1993). Disaggregating the Ombudsman: Towards A Pure Theory of Conflict Resolution.

3. Aparna, M. (2006). Is Consumer Court Really Preferred to Banking Ombudsman? An Analytical Study.

4. Banerjee, S. (2012). Utility of Quasi Judicial Authority in Criminal Justice System with special

reference of Ombodsman and Lokpalbill: Comparative study. Social Science Research Network .

5. Corrie, P. (2008). Instilling Public Confidence in Administration: The Need for an Ombudsman-like

Institution in India. Social Sciences Research Network .

6. Culhane, B. R. (1992). Reflections of a Freshman Student Ombudsman. UCI Ombudsman Journal .

7. Dahra, S. (2012). Emergence of Social Movments: A Comparative Analysis of Anti-Corruption

Movements in India and Indonesia.

8. Dake, J. P., & Mathur, S. (2012). Banking Ombudsman: Protection to Consumer. National Monthly

Refereed Journal of Research in Commerce & Management , Vol.1 (No.1).

9. Democratic, I. N. (2005). Role and Effectiveness of the Ombudsman Institution. Washington: Rights

Consortium.

10. Elliot, M. (2006). Asymmetric Devolution and Ombudsman Reform in England. Social Sciences

Research Network .

11. Elliot, M. (2012). Ombudsmen, Tribunals, Inquiries: Refashioning Accountability beyond the Courts.

Social Sciences Research Network .

12. Ferran, E. (2002). Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the UK Financial Sector. University of

Cambridge.

13. Garg, S. (2012). Lokayukta. Social Sciences Research Network .

14. Gay, O. (2005). The Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. UK Parliament.

15. Harrison, T. R., Hopeck, P., Desrayau, N., & Imboden, K. (2013). The relationship between conflict,

anticipatory procedural justice, and design with intentions to use ombudsman processes. International

Journal of Conflict Management , Vol.24 (No.1).

16. Haryana State Lokayukta Annual Reports (2006-2011).

17. Hawai`i State Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2011).

18. Hawaii Statutes - Chapter No. 96: The Ombudsman. (2007).

19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokayukta. (2013).

20. http://www.world-gazetteer.com. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.world-

gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=wg&geo=437641435&srt=pnan&col=abcdefghino

q&msz=1500&geo=-2943

ijcrb.webs.com



726

JUNE 2013

VOL 5, NO 2

21. Hussain, T. (2010). The Role of Ombudsman in Improving Public Service Delivery in Pakistan. Asian

Development Bank.

22. Khan, D. S. (2006). Public Administration: With Special Reference to Pakistan. Lahore: Famous Books.

23. Kumar, A. (2012). Banking Ombudsman- A Pragmatic Step in the Banking Sector. Social Sciences

Research Network .

24. Kundu, D. R. (2012). Corruption in Governance and Lokpal: The Perspective of 2nd Administrative

Reforms Commission in India. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences , Vol.2 (No.4).

25. Narayana, A., Krishnaswami, S., & Kumar, V. (2011). The Lokpal Bill.

26. Narayana, A., Krishnaswami, S., & Kumar, V. (2011). The Lokpal Bill.

27. Niazi, D. L. (1994). The institution of Muhtasib (Ombudsman). Lahore: Research Cell, Dyal Singh Trust

Library.

28. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2011).

29. Parliamentary Commissioner Act , Article 1, 3, 4 & 5. (1967).

30. Patel, N. (2013). Prosecution of Corrupt Officials in Light of Single Directive. Social Science Research

Network , 1-15.

31. Punjab Ombudsman Annual Reports (2006-2010).

32. Shahid, M. I. (2007). An Advanced Study in Pakistan Affaires. Lahore: Cutex Printers.

33. Shahid, M. I., & Shahid, M. (2011). Public Administration. Lahore: Advanced Publishers.

34. Soye, S. C. (2007). Illusory Ethics: Legal Barriers to an Ombudsman's Compliance with Accepted

Ethical Standards. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal , Vol.8 (No.1).

35. The Haryana Lokayukta Act, Article 3, 6 & 19. (2002).

36. The Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, Article 3, 4, 8, 9, 16 & 20. (1997).

37. UK Census. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20675307

38. United States Census Bureau. (2012). Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15000.html

39. V. Carmona, C. G., Brillantes, A. B., & Tiu Sonco ll, J. O. (2012). Ensuring Accountability in Privatized

and Decentralized Delivery of Public Services: The Role of the Asian Ombudsman. Social Sciences

Research Network .

40. Wallace, G. (1993). Recent Role Variations in the Ombudsman in Education. Journal of UCI

Ombudsman .

41. Yasmeen, S., & Ali, W. (2011). Role and Fuctions of Judicial System in Pakistan. Science, Technology

and Development Paper , Vol.30 (No.3).

42. Zbiral, R. (2007, October 28). Devolution as an Impetus for Reform? The Case of Scottish Ombudsman.

Social Sciences Research Network .

*dr. syed mussawar hussain bukhari, - journal …journal-archieves33.webs.com/709-726.pdf(a...

Documents