Question 28

Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case of strike by the drivers' union of City Transport Department over the issue of compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter. He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the bus and a car driven by a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver's condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come at the spot of accident and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There was exchange of blows between them. The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver's (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved, depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers' union took up this case and when found no favourable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union's demand was two-fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to one family member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains.

How to Approach

This question is a case study demanding application of ethical principles to a real-life administrative dilemma. The approach should involve identifying the stakeholders, analyzing the ethical conflicts, applying relevant principles (like justice, fairness, compassion, rule of law), and proposing a justifiable course of action. The answer should demonstrate understanding of concepts like discretionary powers, administrative ethics, and the importance of balancing competing interests. A structured response focusing on analysis, justification, and a practical solution is crucial.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Administrative ethics forms the bedrock of good governance, ensuring public trust and accountability. Public servants often face complex situations requiring them to navigate conflicting duties and values. The case of Rakesh, the Joint Commissioner, exemplifies such a dilemma. He is caught between upholding departmental norms regarding compensation, addressing the legitimate grievances of a bereaved family, and managing a disruptive strike. This situation necessitates a careful consideration of ethical principles and a balanced approach to resolve the deadlock, ensuring both justice and administrative efficiency.

Understanding the Ethical Dilemma

Rakesh faces a multi-faceted ethical dilemma. The core conflict lies between adhering to the Transport Department’s policy of not providing extra compensation in cases where the driver initiated the violence, and the moral obligation to support the family of a deceased employee, particularly given his socio-economic vulnerability. The strike adds another layer of complexity, impacting public service and potentially escalating the situation.

Stakeholder Analysis

Identifying the stakeholders is crucial for a comprehensive analysis:

The Deceased Driver’s Family: They are the most directly affected, facing financial hardship and emotional distress.
The Injured Car Driver: He is a victim of the assault and deserves justice.
The Transport Department Management: They are concerned with maintaining policy consistency and avoiding setting precedents.
The City Transport Department Workers’ Union: They represent the interests of their members and are advocating for fair treatment.
The General Public: They are affected by the strike and disruption of transport services.
Rakesh (Joint Commissioner): He has a responsibility to uphold the law, ensure fairness, and maintain public order.

Applying Ethical Principles

Several ethical principles are relevant to this case:

Justice: Ensuring fairness and equitable treatment for all parties involved.
Compassion: Showing empathy and concern for the suffering of the deceased driver’s family.
Integrity: Maintaining honesty and upholding ethical standards in decision-making.
Accountability: Taking responsibility for the consequences of actions and decisions.
Rule of Law: Adhering to established laws and regulations.

Analysis of the Situation

While the police investigation revealed the bus driver initiated the violence, it’s crucial to consider the mitigating circumstances. The driver was 52 years old, the sole earner for his family with two school-college going daughters. Denying compensation solely based on his aggressive act, without acknowledging the potential for provocation or the family’s dire situation, appears unduly harsh. The department’s rigid stance lacks compassion and could be perceived as discriminatory.

Proposed Course of Action

Rakesh should adopt a nuanced approach:

Re-evaluate the Compensation Policy: He should advocate for a review of the existing policy to incorporate provisions for exceptional cases, considering factors like family circumstances and the deceased employee’s service record.
Negotiate with the Union: Rakesh should engage in constructive dialogue with the union, explaining the department’s position while acknowledging their concerns.
Partial Compensation & Employment: A compromise could involve offering partial extra compensation, acknowledging the driver’s lapse in judgment but recognizing the family’s hardship. Simultaneously, exploring the possibility of providing employment to a qualified family member (perhaps one of the daughters after completing her education) would address their long-term financial security.
Mediation: Facilitate mediation between the Transport Department and the deceased driver’s family to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Transparency: Ensure transparency in the decision-making process, explaining the rationale behind the final decision to all stakeholders.

Legal and Administrative Considerations

Rakesh must ensure that any decision is legally sound and doesn’t create a precedent that undermines discipline or encourages reckless behavior. However, strict adherence to the letter of the law should not come at the expense of basic human decency and fairness. He should consult with legal experts within the department to ensure compliance with relevant regulations.

Conclusion

The case of Rakesh highlights the complexities of ethical decision-making in public administration. A purely rule-bound approach, devoid of compassion and consideration for individual circumstances, can erode public trust and exacerbate social tensions. By adopting a balanced approach that combines adherence to legal principles with empathy and a willingness to negotiate, Rakesh can resolve the deadlock, provide support to the bereaved family, and uphold the integrity of the Transport Department. A proactive review of compensation policies to incorporate flexibility and address exceptional cases is crucial for preventing similar situations in the future.

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.

Evaluate your handwritten answer in under a minute

Free trial available • Trusted by 1,00,000+ aspirants

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Administrative Ethics

The set of principles and standards that guide the conduct of public officials and employees in the performance of their duties. It emphasizes integrity, impartiality, accountability, and transparency.

Conflict of Interest

A situation in which a public official's personal interests could compromise their objectivity or impartiality in the performance of their duties.

Key Statistics

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data (2022), road accidents accounted for 1.68 lakh deaths in India.

Source: NCRB, 2022

As per the World Bank, India's public sector accounts for approximately 60% of the country's total employment (as of 2021).

Source: World Bank

Examples

The Jessica Lal Case (1999)

This case highlighted the influence of power and money in obstructing justice. The initial investigation was flawed, and witnesses were intimidated. The eventual conviction of the perpetrators after years of struggle underscored the importance of impartial investigation and upholding the rule of law.

Frequently Asked Questions

▶What if providing compensation sets a bad precedent?

While setting precedents is a concern, a nuanced policy can differentiate between cases involving clear negligence and those with mitigating circumstances. A clear framework outlining the criteria for exceptional compensation can minimize the risk of misuse.

Back to all GENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-IV 2022 questions