Ethics Case Studies 2025 (Section B) Solution

(a) Options available

1. Leave immediately to Kerala to perform last rites.
2. Stay back and continue to lead rescue/relief.
3. Stabilise operations (24–72 hrs), hand over charge to ADM/SDMs, then take short sanctioned leave.
4. Authorise a trusted relative/family friend/priests & local administration to conduct last rites now; attend later ceremonies (10th/13th day) and support family.
5. Request temporary reinforcement (senior officer from State HQ/NDRF liaison) so continuity is ensured during any short absence.

(b) Ethical dilemmas

• Role duty vs personal duty: saving many lives vs filial obligation to mother.
• Public interest vs private interest: risk of misusing scarce resources (e.g., helicopter) or creating a leadership vacuum.
• Rule of law/propriety vs emotions: compliance with conduct rules and disaster SOPs despite grief.
• Perception/trust: the district’s morale and public confidence in administration.
• Well-being: personal bereavement affecting decision quality.   

(c) Evaluation of options

• Immediate leave: + human duty, emotional closure; − undermines command in golden hours, telecoms are disrupted, poor optics, potential loss of lives.
• Stay fully: + maximises public welfare, maintains trust; − severe personal distress, family pressure, cultural expectations.
• Stabilise then brief leave: + balances duties; − travel is long; situation could worsen again.
• Proxy last rites, attend later: + no misuse of assets, continuous leadership, dignity ensured; − social criticism/ personal regret.
• Seek reinforcement: + strengthens continuity; − coordination time lag.    

(d) Most appropriate & why
Adopt 4 coupled with 3: ensure dignified last rites via authorised proxies now; remain on duty through peak crisis; once EOC, Incident Commanders and SOPs are firmly in place and the situation stabilises, take brief sanctioned leave to be with family and complete rituals. Actions: written delegation, 24×7 control room, daily SITREPs, clear media/community communication, coordinate with Kerala district administration for rites, avoid personal use of disaster assets. This approach upholds public interest, legality, compassion and integrity.

(a) Can deforestation be ethically justified in the pursuit of social welfare objectives like housing for the homeless?

• Ethical justification is conditional, not absolute.
  While housing is a basic human right (linked to dignity, Article 21, DPSPs), environmental protection is equally a constitutional duty (Article 48A, 51A(g)).
• Consequentialist view (Utilitarianism): Providing shelter to thousands seems morally valuable, but long-term ecological destruction can harm millions, making net consequences negative.
• Deontological view (Duty-based): The state has a duty to protect forests under constitutional provisions and global commitments (Paris Agreement, SDGs).
• Inter-generational ethics: Deforestation compromises the rights of future generations.
  Hence, blanket deforestation is not ethically justified. Social welfare must be achieved without irreparable environmental damage. 

(b) Socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development

1. Socio-economic challenges:
   • Rising urban poor and homeless demand affordable housing.
   • Tribal communities depend on forests for livelihood, culture, and identity.
   • Ecological costs (climate change, floods, soil erosion) hurt the poorest most.
2. Administrative challenges:
   • Land scarcity in urban areas vs. ecological sensitivity of forests.
   • Pressure of political populism (vote-bank housing schemes).
   • Weak coordination between housing, environment, and tribal welfare departments.
   • Implementation hurdles: encroachment, rehabilitation, land records disputes.
3. Ethical challenges:
   • Rights vs Duties: Housing rights vs duty to conserve nature.
   • Short-term welfare vs long-term sustainability.
   • Equity: Benefits to urban poor may displace indigenous tribes.
   • Justice: Exploiting forests may worsen environmental injustice for vulnerable groups.

(c) Substantial alternatives or policy interventions

1. Land-use solutions:
   • Identify degraded/non-arable land for housing instead of forests.
   • Vertical housing in urban centres to minimise land footprint.
   • Land pooling and redevelopment of unused government land.
2. Policy measures:
   • Implement Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) with urban in-situ rehabilitation.
   • Promote eco-friendly housing technologies (low-cost, green materials).
   • Public-private partnerships for affordable housing outside forest zones.
3. Ecological safeguards:
   • Compensatory afforestation and strict environmental audits.
   • Community participation of tribals in eco-tourism, forest produce markets.
   • Strengthen wildlife corridors and conflict-mitigation mechanisms.
4. Ethical governance:
   • Apply Sustainable Development Principle – “Housing with environmental stewardship.”
   • Adopt Gandhian trusteeship model: treat forests as resources to be preserved for all.
   • Balance human dignity with ecological integrity through inclusive dialogue.

Conclusion:
Deforestation cannot be a default choice for social welfare. The ethically sound approach is sustainable housing models that protect biodiversity, empower tribals, and provide shelter. By integrating ecology, equity, and economy, the administration can fulfil both DPSPs and Fundamental Duties, ensuring long-term justice.

(a) Ethical issues involved

1. Conflict of interest (Personal vs Professional duty):
   • Subash’s son pressing him for insider information → misuse of office for private gain.
   • Minister’s nephew’s company pushing for business benefits → nepotism and cronyism.
2. Integrity & Transparency:
   • Sharing project details before official announcement = breach of official secrecy & misuse of privileged information.
   • Risks erosion of public trust in civil services.
3. Rule of Law vs Political Pressure:
   • Minister encouraging favoritism = violation of fairness, equal opportunity, and probity in governance.
4. Professional Ethics:
   • Duty to remain impartial, uphold merit-based decision making in project execution.
5. Family vs Public Duty:
   • Emotional pressure from son → testing Subash’s ability to separate personal life from professional responsibility.
6. Public Interest vs Private Interest:
   • Governance decisions must benefit citizens equitably, not select individuals.

(b) Options available to Subash

1. Yield to son’s request and disclose project location.
   • Pros: Satisfies family, strengthens personal relationship.
   • Cons: Misuse of official position, illegal insider trading, loss of credibility, disciplinary/penal consequences.
2. Comply with Minister’s hint and favour nephew’s company.
   • Pros: Pleases political boss, career advancement, smoother project approval.
   • Cons: Unethical, violates fairness, risks audit/CAG/CBI investigation, damages public trust.
3. Firmly refuse both pressures (son & Minister) while explaining ethical/legal implications.
   • Pros: Upholds integrity, legality, probity, and equal opportunity in tendering.
   • Cons: Strains family relations; possible political backlash/transfer.
4. Institutionalise processes – maintain confidentiality, ensure transparent bidding, involve third-party oversight (e-tendering, CVC guidelines).
   • Pros: Minimises individual discretion, strengthens accountability, protects Subash from blame.
   • Cons: May irritate political superiors.
5. Seek guidance/recourse – confidentially consult Chief Secretary / vigilance / ethics committee if pressure escalates.
   • Pros: Provides institutional shield.
   • Cons: Could antagonise Minister.  

(c) Most appropriate course of action & Why

👉 The best option is a combination of Option 3 + Option 4.

• Subash must maintain confidentiality and politely but firmly refuse his son’s request, clarifying that misuse of insider information is illegal and unethical. He can instead encourage his son to explore business transparently within legal channels.
• Regarding the Minister’s pressure, he must uphold due process by ensuring transparent tendering, fair competition, and documentation of all decisions. By institutionalising systems like e-tendering, independent evaluation committees, and CAG/CVC oversight, he reduces the scope of undue interference.
• If pressure mounts, he should seek institutional support from higher authorities (Chief Secretary, vigilance).

Justification:
This path protects public interest, upholds integrity and fairness, and preserves Subash’s credibility and career. Though it may bring short-term discomfort, in the long run it safeguards both governance and personal honour – fulfilling the constitutional values of probity, justice, and rule of law.

✅ Conclusion:
A civil servant’s foremost loyalty is to the Constitution and the people, not personal or political interests. By choosing transparency, refusing conflict of interest, and institutionalising fair processes, Subash can set a benchmark of ethical governance.  

(a) Options available with Rajesh

1. Approve splitting of expenditure as per “common practice” to satisfy his boss.
   • Pros: Keeps immediate superior happy; may lead to better ACR and promotion prospects.
   • Cons: Violates GFR rules, unethical, audit objection, risk of vigilance/disciplinary action, personal liability.
2. Seek higher authority sanction (as per GFR) for the full Rs. 35 lakhs.
   • Pros: Legally correct, audit-proof, transparent.
   • Cons: May displease boss; possible adverse impact on ACR and career progression.
3. Suggest partial purchase within Rs. 30 lakhs (urgent items) and defer the rest with proper justification.
   • Pros: Fulfills immediate requirement while remaining within delegated powers; reduces conflict.
   • Cons: May be seen as delaying tactics; might not satisfy superior fully.
4. Advise boss in writing about rule position and seek written instructions.
   • Pros: Protects Rajesh from future audit objections; upholds integrity.
   • Cons: Boss may consider this “lack of initiative” or insubordination.
5. Escalate or seek guidance (Finance section / Vigilance / higher authority).
   • Pros: Reinforces procedural compliance; protects Rajesh.
   • Cons: May antagonise boss further; risk of strained relations.

(b) Ethical issues involved

1. Integrity vs Careerism:
   • Should Rajesh compromise rules for a favourable ACR?
2. Conflict of Interest:
   • His personal interest (promotion) conflicts with his duty to uphold financial propriety.
3. Rule of Law vs Individual Discretion:
   • Following GFR is a legal obligation; bypassing it undermines institutional integrity.
4. Misuse of Authority:
   • Boss expecting bypass of rules shows undue influence and organisational culture issues.
5. Public Accountability:
   • Misuse of public money damages citizens’ trust in PSUs and governance.
6. Courage of Conviction:
   • Rajesh’s ability to withstand pressure while safeguarding probity in public life.

(c) Most appropriate option & Why

👉 The best course is a combination of Option 2 + Option 4.

• Rajesh should not split the order. He must insist on obtaining higher authority’s sanction as per GFR.
• He can diplomatically explain to his boss that rules mandate sanction beyond Rs. 30 lakhs, and that bypassing may attract audit/vigilance issues.
• To protect himself, he should record his advice in writing or file noting. If the superior still insists, Rajesh can comply only after written approval, thereby transferring accountability.
• To meet immediate requirements, he can process urgent items within Rs. 30 lakhs and initiate balance purchase after sanction.

Why this is appropriate?

• It ensures financial propriety, compliance with law, and personal integrity.
• Protects Rajesh from future audit/disciplinary action.
• Shows balance of duty to organisation + respect for hierarchy without blindly compromising ethics.
• Though ACR risk exists, in the long run integrity and adherence to rules protect career and reputation more than short-term appeasement.

✅ Conclusion:
Rajesh must remember that civil servants are trustees of public resources. Probity, accountability, and courage of conviction must outweigh fear of career setbacks. By upholding GFR provisions and maintaining transparency, Rajesh ensures both personal credibility and institutional integrity.

(a) Reaction & Restoration of Proper Functioning

• As a responsible administrator, I would treat the situation as a serious breach of public trust involving misappropriation of funds meant for the poorest.
• Immediate reaction: acknowledge systemic corruption and realise that this is not only financial malpractice but also a violation of Right to Work under MGNREGA.
• My priority would be to stop further leakages, restore transparency, ensure justice to beneficiaries, and rebuild faith in governance.
• I would focus on corrective, preventive, and punitive measures simultaneously.

(b) Actions to Solve Issues

1. Money not disbursed to job-seekers:
   • Immediate audit of pending wages, prepare a verified list of genuine beneficiaries.
   • Use Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to ensure money goes to workers’ bank accounts directly.
2. Improper Muster Rolls:
   • Switch to digital muster rolls with biometric authentication (Aadhaar-linked attendance).
   • Regular surprise inspections by block-level officers.
3. Mismatch in work vs payment:
   • Technical verification of all completed works.
   • Introduce geo-tagging of assets through MIS (Management Information System).
4. Payments to fictitious persons:
   • Verify job cards with Aadhaar/ voter ID.
   • Cancel bogus job cards and blacklist those responsible.
5. Job cards without genuine need:
   • Re-assess eligibility at Gram Sabha level.
   • Strict scrutiny of fresh job card issuance.
6. Funds siphoned off:
   • Order special audit by CAG/ State Audit, and report to higher authorities.
   • Initiate disciplinary and criminal action against guilty officials/contractors.
7. Non-existent approved works:
   • Physical verification of assets.
   • Recover misappropriated money and blacklist errant vendors.

(c) Dealing with the Situation

• Short-term: Stop ongoing malpractices, release pending payments to genuine workers, and initiate disciplinary action.
• Medium-term: Introduce transparency tools – social audits, wall writings of sanctioned works, online dashboards, community participation.
• Long-term: Build ethical culture through training of Gram Panchayat officials, use of technology (geo-tagging, mobile-based monitoring), and empowering Gram Sabhas to exercise oversight.
• Personally, I would lead by example – maintain integrity, impartiality, and zero tolerance for corruption.

✅ Conclusion:
The mismanagement of MGNREGA is not just a financial irregularity but a betrayal of the poorest sections of society. As an administrator, I must balance accountability with compassion – ensuring justice to job-seekers while punishing wrongdoers. By combining strict enforcement, systemic reforms, and community empowerment, the scheme can regain its credibility and truly fulfil its purpose of guaranteeing the Right to Work.

(a) Options available with Ashok

1. Allow all people including armed soldiers to cross the border.
   • Saves lives immediately but poses grave security risks.
2. Allow only civilians (women, children, injured) while refusing soldiers.
   • Prioritises humanitarian duty but risks confrontation at the border.
3. Allow civilians while disarming and detaining soldiers in custody.
   • Balances compassion with security; prevents misuse of weapons.
4. Provide relief and medical aid at the border without formal entry.
   • Immediate humanitarian assistance but not a long-term solution.
5. Wait for higher instructions.
   • Safest legally, but delay may cost innocent lives.

(b) Ethical and Legal Dilemmas

• Ethical Dilemmas:
  • Humanitarian concern vs National security.
  • Saving lives of women & children vs Risk of infiltration/terrorism.
  • Immediate compassion vs Long-term consequences of refugee influx.
• Legal Dilemmas:
  • India not a signatory to 1951 Refugee Convention → no binding refugee law.
  • Foreigners Act requires higher approval for asylum/entry.
  • Armed soldiers’ entry may violate sovereignty and security protocols.  

(c) Most Appropriate Option

👉 Option 3 is most balanced –

• Civilians must be given safe passage, shelter, food, and urgent medical care.
• Soldiers should be disarmed, separated from civilians, and kept in secure custody until State/Home Ministry instructions arrive.
• This ensures compassion for vulnerable civilians while safeguarding national security.
• Ashok should document all actions, inform higher authorities once connectivity restores, and seek support from Army/paramilitary and relief agencies.

(d) Extra Precautionary Measures with Soldiers

1. Immediate disarming at the border to prevent misuse of weapons.
2. Separation from civilians to avoid intimidation of refugees.
3. Secure guarded custody in coordination with paramilitary/Army.
4. Identity verification & biometric recording for intelligence purposes.
5. Medical screening to check injuries and hidden threats.
6. Humane treatment as per Geneva Conventions to avoid international criticism.
7. Strict surveillance until higher instructions for repatriation/processing.

✅ Conclusion:
Ashok must act with compassion, prudence, and legality. By admitting civilians, disarming and detaining soldiers, and ensuring transparency in decision-making, he balances humanitarian values with national security responsibilities.