Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public funds are entrusted to civil servants for efficient and effective service delivery, demanding the highest standards of integrity and accountability. The misuse or potential misuse of these funds constitutes a serious ethical breach. Rajesh Kumar finds himself in a challenging situation where he is aware of irregularities, potentially involving his superiors. This scenario highlights the conflict between loyalty to the organization and the duty to uphold ethical principles and legal obligations. The question requires a careful examination of his options, assessing whether resignation is a justifiable response to the ethical dilemma.
Understanding the Ethical Dilemma
Rajesh Kumar faces a classic whistle-blower dilemma. He is privy to information suggesting improper utilization of public funds. Remaining silent would violate his ethical duty to uphold integrity and accountability. However, directly confronting superiors or reporting the matter could lead to professional repercussions, including potential ostracization or even career damage. The core ethical principles at play are: integrity (honesty and moral principles), accountability (being responsible for one’s actions), transparency (openness and clarity), and public interest (acting in the best interest of the public).
Options Available to Rajesh Kumar
- Internal Reporting: Reporting the irregularities to a higher authority within the organization, bypassing those potentially involved. This aligns with the principle of accountability and allows the organization to self-correct.
- Reporting to External Agencies: Reporting the matter to agencies like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), or even the police. This is a more assertive step, ensuring external scrutiny.
- Seeking Legal Counsel: Consulting a lawyer to understand his legal obligations and potential liabilities.
- Documenting Evidence: Gathering and preserving evidence of the irregularities to support any future action.
- Raising Concerns Anonymously: Utilizing anonymous reporting mechanisms, if available, to avoid direct repercussions.
- Resignation: Voluntarily leaving his position as a protest against the unethical practices.
Analyzing Each Option
| Option | Pros | Cons | Ethical Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Reporting | Allows for internal correction, maintains organizational loyalty. | May be ineffective if superiors are involved, potential for retaliation. | Accountability, Integrity |
| External Reporting | Ensures independent investigation, upholds public interest. | High risk of retaliation, potential legal challenges. | Integrity, Accountability, Public Interest |
| Legal Counsel | Provides clarity on legal obligations, protects personal interests. | Does not directly address the ethical issue. | Prudence, Self-preservation |
| Documenting Evidence | Strengthens any future action, provides a record of events. | Does not resolve the issue immediately, potential for evidence tampering. | Integrity, Accountability |
| Anonymous Reporting | Minimizes risk of retaliation. | May lack credibility, investigation may be hampered. | Integrity, Public Interest |
| Resignation | Upholds personal integrity, sends a strong message. | Does not directly address the issue, may not prevent further irregularities, loss of opportunity to effect change. | Integrity, Moral Courage |
Is Resignation a Worthy Option?
While resignation demonstrates strong moral character and upholds personal integrity, it is not necessarily the *most* effective option. Resigning removes Rajesh Kumar from the situation, potentially allowing the unethical practices to continue unchecked. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, emphasize the duty of government servants to report corruption and irregularities. Therefore, exploring internal reporting mechanisms, followed by external reporting to the CVC or CAG, would be more ethically responsible. Resignation should be considered a last resort, after all other avenues have been exhausted and proven ineffective. It’s a powerful statement, but a potentially passive one in terms of achieving systemic change.
Conclusion
Rajesh Kumar faces a difficult ethical challenge. While resignation is a morally justifiable option, it is not the most strategically sound. Prioritizing internal and external reporting, backed by documented evidence, offers a greater chance of rectifying the situation and upholding the principles of public service. Resignation should be reserved as a final recourse if all other attempts to address the irregularities fail, ensuring that his commitment to integrity doesn’t come at the cost of inaction.
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.