Ethics Case Studies Compilation (1 to 5) | UPSC Mains: Ethics, Integrity & Aptitude PDF Download

Case - 1

Q.1. You are the District Magistrate of a district. Some day while travelling on the road in your district, you find that in a certain place, the road is very congested. This leads to frequent traffic jams and causes huge discomfort to the localites. You discuss the matter in your office and you come to know that this problem has arisen due to heavy encroachment of shops on both sides of the road. The only way to broaden the road is by demolishing the encroachment. However, you are also told that these shops had been there for generations, and removing these shops would affect the livelihood of the owners. Then ordered the demolition of the illegal encroachments. Your order was welcomed by the daily commuters and many law-abiding citizens. However, a huge uproar started taking place in the city against your orders by those whose shops are to be demolished. All political parties, including the ruling party, came in support of the business community.
Which of the options should be followed by you? 
1. Stop the demolition drive and let things remain as they were.
2. Carry out the demolition drive strictly as per the established law.
3. Allow the businessmen to approach the court and get stay orders.
4. Any other option available to you. Discuss with reasons. 
Ans. Burglary and illegal construction of public property is one of the biggest problems in India. Police and local government officials often close their eyes and ears while inspecting illegal buildings because of corruption. Politicians also benefit from donations, large-scale voting and other forms of illicit gratification for such businessmen. Skipping, however, creates problems for commuters on a daily basis. Removing the interference will create difficulties for the business community, but it will also benefit the community as a whole. Now let's talk about the different options in this case.
1. Stopping the demolition campaign will tarnish the image of the police officer and his office. There are also allegations of corruption against the official as it is common for government officials to intimidate people into taking action against them after a bribe. So, this is not the right choice.
2. An employee must comply with the law in writing and in spirit. He should apply the law without looking at the consequences. Once you have started the demolition drive, you should take it to a logical conclusion. This is the right choice.
3. You must follow all the correct procedures before starting the demolition campaign. Performance speed is critical to the success of this type of work. You can reduce the speed of giving time to business people to go to court and get a residence permit. Such a move would tarnish the image of your office and tarnish the image of the government. This, then, is not the right choice.
4. A public servant should always consider as many options as possible. You may consult with various stakeholder representatives such as business communities, Residents Welfare Associations (RWAs) and community members to reassure them of the benefits of road widening. You can also consult with the media to highlight the problems caused by illegal construction and the benefits of widening the road to the city. This will create public support in favor of your action. If the people were to support the demolition of houses, politicians would back down, and the work of government could be carried out without hindrance.

Case - 2

Q.2. You are a senior engineer in a government department responsible for the construction of a national highway. You are an honest officer and you have never followed any corrupt practice in your life. However, you have always been a very obedient person who followed the instructions of your superiors. In one case you are being asked by your chief engineer to give the son of a minister who was under a lot of pressure the tender for the road construction. You have awarded the tender without following the rules and regulations because you would not refuse your manager. You have recently been appointed as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of your department. One day, you receive a request from an RTI activist, who is seeking information related to all the tender approvals you have made in the last five years. You know that if an RTI activist gets this information, you may be in big trouble.
What should you do in this situation?
1. Refuse to provide any information under RTI.
2. Provide all details except incorrect tender file information.
3. Talk to your senior engineer about this and seek his or her advice and authorization.
4. Any other method. Please correct the action.
Ans. There are well-established tendering procedures in all government departments. Any breach of procedure during the awarding of a tender is illegal, which may call for vigilant action under the Anti-Corruption Act. Although a government official is expected to follow the orders of his superior, he is not obliged to follow the orders of his superiors, especially if these are given verbally. It is also provided in the ‘rules of conduct’ that all oral instructions should be rewritten as soon as possible. All decisions made by government officials must be recorded in files that remain in the department whether the official is transferred or retired. Thus, illegal activities by government officials follow for several years after the operation. Now let's talk about the different options in this case.
1. The PIO is obliged to provide accurate legal information. Provision of information on tenders is not included under any exclusion clause provided for in the RTI Act. Therefore, non-disclosure of information may call for personal punishment under the RTI and departmental action against the officer. Therefore, this is not the right choice.
2. It is the PIO's duty to provide complete and accurate information. Deliberate withdrawal from a tender may constitute an honest and invalid procedure for non-disciplinary proceedings under the RTI Act. Such deliberate omission can be used as evidence against him. In addition, an RTI activist may file a new application or speak to the appeal authority to compel the PIO to provide certain documentation. So, this is also not the right choice.
3. The PIO may discuss the matter with anyone, but only he or she may be responsible for providing the information. Government processes often give the optional head of department — as a senior engineer — the right to award tenders to other tenderers in special cases accordingly. If the tender was valid and the breach was procedural, it could be approved by the Chief Engineer. This option may be tested.
4. The official must provide complete and accurate information. If the question is ordered based on the RTI and the matter is investigated, he or she must provide an accurate statement during the investigation. Since the officer has always been an honest officer, a minor sentence — including a warning — can be issued against him for violating procedures, which may have no long-term consequences. This is the best option.

Case - 3

Q.3. Ram has been appointed as a legal magistrate in India. One morning, while walking through the park, he saw a man being attacked by a criminal with a knife. He hid behind a tree where he could easily see the face of the attacker who fled the scene after seriously injuring the man. The deceased later died at the hospital. Ram did not report the matter to anyone as he did not want to get into legal trouble. Years later, he was promoted to district judge. One day, the same murder trial came before him. Police conducted a thorough investigation and opened the case to the accused. When the accused was brought before Ram, he quickly realized that it was not the killer. However, there were many witnesses in the case, and there was written evidence to prove that the defendant had committed the crime. During the intermission, Ram called the defendant to his room and asked him, ‘Tell me honestly. Did you commit this murder? ‘The man fell at his feet and said,‘ Lord, I did not kill this! The police falsely accused me. ’Ram asked him why the police had tried to lie to him. The suspect said, ‘Sir, I am a professional killer. I killed the first person and got Rs 10 lakh for murder. I paid the police part of the money. When I killed the second time, I got Rs 20 lakh again, I gave the police Rs 10 lakh to help me. When the murder took place, the police asked me to pay again. I refused to pay since I did not commit this murder. Therefore, they falsely accused me of this crime. ’Ram knew in advance that the accused was not a murderer. Now he faces a moral dilemma.
What should he do?
1. Should he confess to the court that he was a witness in a murder case, but did not go public as a witness to avoid harassment?
2. Should he or she punish the defendant in accordance with the law based on the evidence presented before the court?
3. Any other means you can suggest to the judges. 
Confirm your answer.
Ans. Many people in India avoid witnessing because of the trauma caused by a lengthy trial and the threat to their health. However, civil servants as judges are expected to carry out their duties as honest citizens even when they are not on duty, and to report a murder case before him to the police. The judge renders judgments based on the evidence presented before him without prejudice. This is a case of conflict between the ‘first principles of honesty’ and the ‘first principle of justice’. If he released the accused, it would satisfy the principle of honesty, but it would be a violation of the justice system because that person is accused of murder in at least two cases. If he dismisses the person, it would be contrary to the principle of honesty as he knows that the defendant is innocent in the case.
Now let's talk about different options.
1. If he becomes a witness, the accused professional killer may be acquitted. This would be a violation of the principles of justice as he is well aware that the accused has previously committed murder.
2. If he punishes her, it would be a violation of her integrity as she knows he is innocent in the case.
3. He must withdraw from the case and be a witness. It should recommend to the government that an independent investigation be conducted on all three, including current cases, by the Special Task Force (STF) or CBI so that the real perpetrators can be booked and the guilty police punished and falsely arrested. a case against a person. He or she may also order that the other charges against the accused be reopened, so that the accused and the police officers will not be acquitted and punished for their crimes and corruption.

Case - 4

Q.4. He is the head of the HR department at a well-known company. The company should elect a manager at the top of your organization. Your team has added you to a list of a few applicants and submitted CVs for people to receive for approval. When you look at the list, you find that at the top of the list is someone who was your best friend during your childhood. You know that a friend of yours was in a bad relationship during his university days, until he was arrested for his crimes at the time. However, he later became a righteous man, and he never committed another crime. If you look at his CV you will find that he has not mentioned the incident of his arrest in the column where this information was sought. You know that your company may not hire the arrested person.
What should you do now as head of the HR department?
1. Present and let the board decide the matter on the basis of suitability and the basis of the information contained in the records.
2. Let the board know your friend's truth and let the board decide.
Please provide appropriate reasons for selecting any options. 
Ans. This is a case of conflict between the basic principles of honesty and profit. If you tell the truth to your superiors, your friend may lose some of his or her opportunity to get a job. If you do not tell the truth, it is against the principle of honesty. Let us now consider two options.
1. If you keep quiet, your friend may get a job. However, it will be known to senior management sooner or later that you know him from your childhood. His past crimes may have been exposed if someone complained about him, or he himself talked about it with someone. Do not lose the reputation of your company and the trust of your management. So, this is not the right choice.
2. If you tell the authorities the truth, your friend may not get the job. However, you can explain to your management that you know him and have never done anything wrong in the last two decades. You can even assure management that you will be useful to the company.
If the management is convinced, you are the supporter of both principles, namely the principle of honesty and the principle of profit. However, even if he is not employed, the principle of honesty is maintained. You have never violated the principle of beneficence, as you have tried your best to help your friend.

Case - 5

Q.5. You are an honest man who believes that corruption is the worst crime in India. They fought battles against many corrupt government officials using RTI, and by filing PIL applications in the courts. One day he meets an old friend who has just joined a government department known for its corruption. Invited you to lunch at the five star hotel. After he was drunk, he opened his chest and started talking about corruption in his department. He told you that at first he was hesitant to bribe but gradually, after seeing that everyone in the department was being bribed, he started making money, too. He explained that in his department everyone had to pay a monthly fee to his supervisor. If he fails to pay his supervisor a monthly stipend, he may have his money changed or he may be charged with fraud.
What should you do?
1. Record the conversation on your cell phone and report the matter to the CBI.
2. Tell him not to talk to you about legal matters.
3. Ask your friend to stop bribery and live an honest life.
Please provide reasons for accepting or rejecting each option. Give the correct reasons for each option.
Ans. Corruption is rampant in many government departments in India. Many government officials do not feel ashamed of corruption, and they often excuse it for various reasons. They often pour out their heart to their trusted friends. In this, there is a conflict between prima facie principles of honesty, keeping promises and not being a man. Let's talk about the different options available to us.
1. If you record the interview and present it before the CBI as evidence, it is in line with the principle of honesty. However, such an action would be tantamount to violating a promise to keep a promise because you have violated your friend's trust. This also violates the principle of disrespect because such an act could harm your friend. If you do this once, no friend can trust you by sharing his or her secrets with you. Moreover, the CBI cannot do much based on such recorded conversations unless there is evidence to link bribery in certain cases or the collection of illegal assets. He may also say that he was trying to impress you or make you jealous. So, this is not the right choice.
2. It would be a good idea to tell her that she should not discuss legal issues with you, especially those related to corruption as you will not be able to tolerate any corruption in your life. If you do not know about corruption, you should not take action against corruption. Therefore, you follow the principle of honesty and the principle of keeping promises. However, this will not be the best option as your friend may face criminal charges in the future and be arrested or dismissed.
3. You can explain to your friend that in government, officials are protected by law and the Constitution, and no one can force corruption on any government official. You should try to convince your friend that honesty is the best policy you can have for living happily and peacefully and that you need to be honest to avoid future problems. Such an act will be accompanied by the principle of honesty and kindness. This is the best moral option.