Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public service demands unwavering integrity and adherence to ethical conduct. However, situations often arise where a public servant disagrees with a superior’s directive. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, provide a framework for navigating such dilemmas. The scenario presented – a Public Information Officer (PIO) seeking advice from a superior and acting upon it despite personal disagreement – highlights a complex ethical challenge. While obedience to lawful authority is crucial, blind adherence can compromise accountability and transparency, cornerstones of good governance. This answer will analyze the ethical implications of this situation, exploring the PIO’s responsibilities and the potential consequences of such a course of action.
Understanding the Ethical Dilemma
The core of this question lies in the tension between hierarchical authority and individual ethical responsibility. A PIO, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is entrusted with providing information to citizens. If a superior advises the PIO to withhold information that should rightfully be disclosed, the PIO faces a moral conflict. Acting on the superior’s advice, even with disagreement, raises questions about the PIO’s commitment to transparency and the principles of the RTI Act.
Relevant Rules and Regulations
Several rules govern the conduct of public servants in such situations:
- CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Rule 3 specifically emphasizes integrity and honesty. While it doesn’t explicitly address disagreements with superiors, it implies a duty to act ethically and responsibly.
- RTI Act, 2005: Section 4 mandates *suo motu* disclosure of information by public authorities. Section 7 outlines the process for citizens to request information, and Section 8 specifies exemptions. A superior’s advice to withhold information must be legally justified under Section 8.
- Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Guidelines: The CVC emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct and provides mechanisms for reporting wrongdoing.
Analyzing the PIO’s Position
The PIO’s action, while seemingly compliant, can be analyzed from different ethical perspectives:
- Duty Ethics (Deontology): From a deontological perspective, the PIO has a duty to uphold the RTI Act and provide information unless a legally valid exemption applies. Simply following a superior’s advice doesn’t absolve the PIO of this duty.
- Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): A utilitarian approach would assess the consequences of both actions – disclosing the information versus withholding it. If disclosing the information benefits the public good and withholding it causes harm, the PIO has a greater ethical obligation to disclose.
- Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent. A virtuous PIO would demonstrate courage, integrity, and a commitment to transparency, even in the face of pressure from superiors.
Potential Consequences
The PIO’s decision to act on the superior’s advice, despite disagreement, can have several consequences:
- Erosion of Public Trust: Withholding information erodes public trust in the government and the RTI mechanism.
- Accountability Deficit: It creates a situation where accountability is compromised, as the PIO shields the superior from scrutiny.
- Legal Repercussions: If the information withheld is not legally exempt, the PIO and the superior could face legal action under the RTI Act.
- Moral Compromise: The PIO’s own ethical standards are compromised, potentially leading to future unethical behavior.
Alternative Courses of Action
The PIO had several alternative courses of action:
- Documenting Disagreement: The PIO should have documented their disagreement with the superior’s advice in writing, clearly stating the reasons for their dissent and referencing the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
- Seeking Second Opinion: The PIO could have sought a second opinion from another senior officer or the Information Commissioner.
- Filing a Complaint: If the superior’s advice was clearly unethical or illegal, the PIO could have filed a complaint with the CVC or the Information Commission.
- Resigning (as a last resort): If all other avenues were exhausted and the PIO felt strongly about the ethical implications, resignation could be considered.
The Importance of ‘Reasoned Dissent’
A healthy democracy requires ‘reasoned dissent’ within the bureaucracy. Public servants must be empowered to challenge unethical or illegal directives from superiors without fear of retribution. This requires a culture of transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership within the government.
Conclusion
The PIO’s decision to blindly follow a superior’s advice, despite personal disagreement, represents a failure of ethical leadership and a compromise of public trust. While respecting authority is important, it cannot supersede the duty to uphold the law and act with integrity. A robust ethical framework within the public service, coupled with mechanisms for reporting wrongdoing and protecting whistleblowers, is essential for ensuring good governance and accountability. Promoting a culture of reasoned dissent and empowering public servants to act ethically, even in challenging situations, is crucial for a vibrant democracy.
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.