Day 60 – Q 5.
Q5. While processing an important file of your department, you realise that something is fishy about the proposals made by your subordinate. A decision based purely on merit would mean the rejection of proposal and hence saving crores of rupees to the exchequer. However, you realise that your seniors have been pressing too hard for the proposal to be accepted by the concerned Minister. In fact, your immediate boss has given you indirect signals that there is tremendous pressure from higher political echelons to pass the proposal without delving too much into its merits. In a nutshell, the incumbent political class is ‘interested’ in the proposal as it would benefit their friends and family.
You firmly believe that the proposal sans merit and if passed, it would be illegal and incorrect. You decide not to buckle under pressure and write your views on the file independent of any bias or pressure. When the file reaches your boss, he gets furious and calls for you. When you meet him, he scolds you badly, tears the note from the file and asks you to either cooperate or face consequences. When you tell him that you can’t go beyond the legal boundaries and that any future inquiry might jeopardise your career, your boss directs you to go on a medical leave. By doing so, not only you will be saved; in your absence a willing and compliant officer would be deputed in your place to get things done.
Now you are in a big dilemma. If you don’t go on leave and stand by your views, you can be transferred far way from your family in the remotest of locations possible. That would mean misery for you and your family. But if you go on leave and in your absence, the proposal gets through, it would amount to turning a blind eye to the wrongdoings you are well aware of.
Now consider the following alternatives:
- You would take leave and go out for a long holiday with your family.
- You won’t agree to the idea of taking leave and insist that the file be sent with facts and views based on actual merit and unbiased assessment.
- You would become a whistleblower and bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
Examine the pros and cons of each of these alternatives and also give reasons for the one that you would choose.
Introduction
This is classic case of corruption in public department and collusion between public servant and politician.
Stakeholders – Me, my family, politician, senior, subordinate, society at large
Body
Values – Integrity, Honesty, responsibility, courage, transparency
In this situation,
By following First option
Merit
I will definitely save my relations with my boss and also will come in the good book of politician. It is the safest option without facing any future consequences.
Demerit
But this option will go against my self-esteem.
As a honest officer its my duty to not let happen corruption and also not let waste the money of taxpayers.
This option will lead to escape from duty.
By following second option
Merit
not only I will doing my duty but will not let my conscience die.
It enables my dynamism and preservation of prestige of the organization if file be passed on merit system:
> Politics corporate Nexus may get reduce
Demerits:
> I may get transferred to an isolated location.
> After transfer no one to highlight the wrongdoing.
By following third option. Being a whistle-blower:
Merits:
> PMO may take the whole responsibility of going depth into the matter.
> This may lead to breaking of ongoing nexus.
> Law at the ground to protect the whistle-blower would protect both my job and possible false departmental proceeding against me
Demerits:
> Highlighting the wrongdoing in my company.
> Possible threat to my life and Job etc.
“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet”
Running away from a problem is never a solution. Clearly it’s a case of professional Vs personal ethical dilemma and I would prefer to put earlier at top.
I wouldn’t choose to go on leave as it would cause to continue the wrong happening in my company and I may lose the job if my company gets caught later in an Audit.
First I would insist on going through merit based route and take suggestions from senior officials not involved in it.
If nothing works, I would opt for whistle blowing to PMO in order to save my organization and the interest of Nation at large. I would gather the in a suitable of the happening from past as well to strengthen my case. I would use RTI provisions for the same to gather information. I would also ensure enough protection fa suitable as it is involving political power.
Conclusion
Write a suitable and brief conclusion
Best answer: Kumar
