Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The directive “Follow the advice of the Chief Engineer and go ahead” encapsulates a common scenario in bureaucratic settings where a subordinate is instructed to proceed with a task, potentially overlooking ethical or legal concerns. This situation highlights the tension between hierarchical authority and individual responsibility. Public servants are often caught between loyalty to superiors and their duty to uphold the law and serve the public interest. The question demands a nuanced understanding of ethical governance, professional conduct, and the potential ramifications of blind obedience, particularly in engineering projects where public safety is paramount.
Understanding the Ethical Dilemma
The core of this question lies in a conflict of interest. The instruction to “go ahead” implies a potential disregard for due process, safety regulations, or ethical considerations. A subordinate official faces a moral quandary: should they prioritize obedience to a superior, or uphold their professional and ethical obligations? This situation is further complicated by the potential for legal repercussions if the project proceeds improperly.
Ethical Principles at Play
Several ethical principles are relevant here:
- Integrity: Maintaining honesty and strong moral principles. Following potentially unethical advice compromises integrity.
- Accountability: Being responsible for one’s actions and decisions. Blindly following orders doesn’t absolve the subordinate of accountability.
- Transparency: Ensuring openness and clarity in decision-making. The directive suggests a lack of transparency if concerns are being ignored.
- Public Interest: Prioritizing the well-being of the public. If the project poses a risk to public safety, following the advice is a violation of this principle.
- Professional Ethics: Engineers, in particular, have a code of ethics emphasizing safety, honesty, and competence. (As per the Indian National Board for Higher Education’s Code of Ethics for Engineers).
Analyzing the Potential Consequences
Following the Advice
- Potential Benefits: Maintaining good relations with the superior, avoiding immediate conflict, career advancement (potentially).
- Potential Risks: Legal repercussions (if the project is illegal or unsafe), damage to professional reputation, compromise of public safety, erosion of trust in the institution, personal guilt and moral distress.
Disobeying the Advice
- Potential Benefits: Upholding ethical principles, protecting public safety, maintaining professional integrity, preventing legal issues.
- Potential Risks: Disciplinary action, strained relationship with the superior, potential career setbacks, accusations of insubordination.
Legal and Institutional Framework
Several legal and institutional frameworks are relevant:
- The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: If the Chief Engineer’s advice is motivated by corruption, following it could implicate the subordinate.
- Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: These rules emphasize integrity, honesty, and devotion to duty.
- Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014: Provides protection to individuals who report corruption or wrongdoing.
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Promotes transparency and accountability in governance.
A Case Study Approach: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984)
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of prioritizing cost-cutting and efficiency over safety. While not directly analogous, it illustrates how a disregard for safety protocols, driven by managerial decisions, can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Had subordinate engineers challenged the decisions that compromised safety, the tragedy might have been averted. This highlights the importance of ethical courage and professional responsibility.
Recommended Course of Action
The most ethical course of action is to respectfully, but firmly, question the Chief Engineer’s advice. The subordinate should:
- Document Concerns: Record all concerns in writing, outlining the potential risks and ethical/legal violations.
- Seek Clarification: Request a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the advice.
- Escalate the Issue: If the Chief Engineer remains adamant, escalate the issue to a higher authority (e.g., a higher-ranking engineer, a vigilance officer).
- Consider Whistleblowing: As a last resort, if the issue involves significant corruption or public safety risks, consider reporting it through appropriate channels, utilizing the protections offered by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while respecting authority is important, it cannot supersede ethical obligations and legal responsibilities. The directive to “Follow the advice of the Chief Engineer and go ahead” presents a significant ethical challenge. A conscientious public servant must prioritize integrity, accountability, and public interest, even if it means facing potential repercussions. Promoting a culture of ethical decision-making within organizations is crucial to prevent such dilemmas and ensure responsible governance. Ultimately, upholding professional ethics and safeguarding public welfare are paramount.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.