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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/311535149
Institutional Analysis of Ombudsman: (A Comparative Study of Pakistan, India,

UK and USA)
Article · June 2013
CITATIONS READS
2 3,551
2 authors, including:
Muhammad Asif
Zhejiang University
17 PUBLICATIONS 152 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Leadership in Public Sector View project
E-government and Good Governance View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Asif on 03 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ijcrb.webs.com JUNE 2013
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS 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,
Hawaiì 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 Hawaiì 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
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 709

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, Hawaiì 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 Hawaiì
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)

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

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,

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

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?

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 Hawaiì 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))

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.

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 2440 2965 2786 6628 2636

Forward
Received 11872 13681 8997 13157 10252
Total Processed 14312 16646 11783 19785 12888
Disposed 11347 13860 5155 17149 10905
Percentage of 79.2831191 83.2632 43.7495 86.6768 84.6136

Disposed
Complaints
Percentage of 95.5778302 101.308 57.2969 130.341 106.369

Disposed
Complaints As
per Received
Carried 2965 2786 6628 2636 1983

Forward
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.
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.

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 45.112782 55.3785 66.2963 56.1462 59.0708

Disposed Complaints
Percentage of 45.11278195 78.08989 113.2911 80.47619 83.4375

Disposed Complaints
As per Year Received

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.

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 95.5084175 88.5877 87.7905 93.808 94.5848

Disposed Complaints
Percentage of 97.7463818 93.3004 95.9036 102.43 101.046

Disposed Complaints
As per Year Received
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.

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.

Table 4.1: Total Complaints History of Hawaiì State Ombudsman from 2007-2011 with
Complaints Years
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Brought 189 169 161 176 153

Forward
Received 4501 4649 4560 4978 4686
Total Processed 4690 4818 4721 5154 4839
Disposed 4521 4657 4545 5001 4691
Percentage of 96.3965885 96.6584 96.272 97.0314 96.9415

Disposed
Complaints
Percentage of 100.444346 100.172 99.6711 100.462 100.107

Disposed
Complaints As
per Year
Received
Carried 169 161 176 153 148

Forward

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.

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. Hawaiì 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

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 .
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Institutional Analysis of Ombudsman: (A Comparative Study of Pakistan, India,

Article · June 2013

Leadership in Public Sector View project

E-government and Good Governance View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Institutional Analysis of Ombudsman:

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

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

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 709

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 710

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 711

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 712

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 713

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 714

Performance Based Comparison:

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

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))

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 715

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 716

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Brought 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 79.2831191 83.2632 43.7495 86.6768 84.6136

Percentage of 95.5778302 101.308 57.2969 130.341 106.369

Carried 2965 2786 6628 2636 1983

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

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 718

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

Percentage of 45.112782 55.3785 66.2963 56.1462 59.0708

Percentage of 45.11278195 78.08989 113.2911 80.47619 83.4375

Carried Forward 73 112 91 132 185

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 719

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))

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 720

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

Received 14510 12538 16307 23665 23422

Total Processed 14850 13205 17814 25840 25022

Disposed 14183 11698 15639 24240 23667

Percentage of 95.5084175 88.5877 87.7905 93.808 94.5848