Model Answer

(a) Analyze the ethical concerns raised by this case.

Answer

Ethical Concerns Raised by the Case

Presumption of Innocence

One of the primary ethical concerns in this case is the presumption of innocence. According to this principle, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Rushing to terminate an employee based solely on a video without concrete evidence violates this ethical standard. It is critical to refrain from jumping to conclusions, as premature judgment can lead to unfair treatment of the employee and could result in unjust consequences.

Rule of Fair Hearing and Due Process

The rule of fair hearing is another essential ethical consideration. This principle mandates that the individual accused should have the opportunity to present their side of the story. By not providing the employee with a fair chance to explain or defend themselves, the company would be denying them a fundamental aspect of natural justice. Terminating the employee without due process could raise concerns about the company’s adherence to legal and ethical standards.

Social Responsibility

Social responsibility plays a significant role in the company’s decision-making process. As a corporate entity, the company must maintain ethical standards and demonstrate a commitment to social responsibility. Hastily dismissing the employee without a thorough investigation could tarnish the company’s reputation and damage relationships with stakeholders, including employees, investors, and the public. It is crucial for the company to act thoughtfully and consider the broader impact of their actions.

Media Ethics

The role of the media in this case is also an ethical concern. Media ethics dictate that reporting should be accurate, fair, and impartial. Speculative reporting or spreading unverified information about the employee can be seen as irresponsible journalism. A media trial without facts can lead to severe consequences, including harm to the employee’s reputation and unnecessary public scrutiny.

Employee Welfare

Lastly, the ethical treatment of the employee’s welfare is a critical consideration. The employee is under significant mental and emotional distress due to media attention. Any decision that exacerbates this situation, particularly without clear evidence, could unduly harm the employee’s psychological and financial stability. Ensuring the well-being of employees should be a priority for the company, balancing the need for justice with compassion.

(b) What options do you have in this situation?

Option 01: Terminate the Employee with Immediate Effect

Pros:

• Company Image Protection: Immediate termination can help protect the company’s reputation and reassure investors.
• Deterrent Message: Sending a strong message to other employees about the potential professional consequences of inappropriate personal conduct.
• Support for Female Employees: Demonstrates the company’s commitment to addressing gender violence issues, reassuring female employees that their concerns will be taken seriously.

Cons:

• Unfair Without Evidence: Terminating the employee without confirming guilt would be unjust and could lead to legal challenges for wrongful dismissal. The company risks being seen as hasty in its judgment.

Option 02: Suspend the Employee Temporarily and Order an Internal Enquiry

Pros:

• Appease Stakeholders: A temporary suspension could help satisfy those pressuring the CEO for action, buying time while a thorough internal investigation is conducted.
• Opportunity for the Employee’s Defense: Provides the employee with the chance to explain his side of the story.
• Workplace Behavior Assessment: The internal inquiry can help evaluate the employee’s conduct within the workplace, particularly towards female colleagues.

Cons:

• Risk of Ineffectiveness: If the case is handled by police or other legal bodies, the internal enquiry might become irrelevant.
• Potential Panic Among Employees: Acting on a social media post alone might cause unnecessary panic, especially with concerns over the authenticity of the information, as deep fake content is becoming more prevalent.

Option 03: Register the Case with Authorities and Offer Work from Home (WFH)

Pros:

• Impartial Investigation: Involving the police ensures an unbiased investigation to confirm the employee’s innocence or guilt.
• Support for Employee: The WFH option allows the employee to continue working while being shielded from public scrutiny, offering mental and emotional support during the investigation.

Cons:

• Investigation Delays: Police investigations can be slow, and if the case goes to court, it may take even longer to resolve, delaying any firm action from the company.

Model Answer

(a) What ethical dilemmas does Bhushan encounter?

Ethical Dilemmas Bhushan Faces

Bhushan encounters several ethical dilemmas throughout the situation, each presenting a conflict between personal relationships, professional integrity, and responsibilities. The main dilemmas are as follows:

Loyalty to the Company vs. Friendship with Manoj

Bhushan faces the challenge of balancing his loyalty to his company with his friendship with Manoj. As a part of the internal audit team, Bhushan is expected to act in the best interests of the organization by identifying and addressing any misconduct, including possible financial misappropriations by Manoj. However, his friendship with Manoj creates a conflict, as Bhushan may feel inclined to protect his friend from the consequences of his actions. The dilemma arises from the tension between doing what is professionally correct for the company and being there for a close friend in a difficult situation.

Professional Integrity vs. Personal Interest

Another ethical dilemma Bhushan encounters is the conflict between professional integrity and personal interests. His role requires him to maintain ethical standards, ensure transparency, and act impartially during audits. However, Bhushan is concerned that exposing Manoj’s wrongdoings may endanger his own job security, as such revelations could upset colleagues or superiors who are loyal to Manoj. This presents a dilemma where Bhushan’s professional ethics clash with his desire to protect his personal interests, such as maintaining job stability and safeguarding his career prospects.

Empathy vs. Responsibility

Finally, Bhushan faces the challenge of empathy versus responsibility. He understands and empathizes with Manoj’s personal struggles, which may have led to his dishonest actions. At the same time, Bhushan has a professional duty to ensure accountability and rectify any wrongdoings in the company. This creates an emotional conflict for Bhushan, as he must choose between supporting his friend and fulfilling his responsibility to report misconduct. While empathy for Manoj may make Bhushan hesitant to act, his duty to the company pushes him to make an objective decision for the greater good.

These dilemmas reflect the complex nature of ethical decision-making, where personal and professional considerations often collide.

​(b) What options are available to Bhushan? Assess the pros and cons of each.

Answer

Options Available to Bhushan

Bhushan faces a challenging situation where he must choose between loyalty to his friend, professional integrity, and responsibility to the company. The following are the options available to him:

1. Avoid Reporting the Matter

Bhushan could decide not to report the fraudulent activities involving Manoj, fearing the potential repercussions for his friend.

Merits:

• This option demonstrates loyalty to his friend, preventing Manoj from facing potential job loss or punishment.
• It is compassionate, showing understanding of Manoj’s financial struggles that may have contributed to his actions.
• Given the relatively small financial loss, Bhushan might feel that reporting the issue wouldn’t significantly impact the company.

Demerits:

• Bhushan would be compromising his professional responsibility to the company.
• It could lead to a lack of accountability and encourage future unethical behavior by allowing employees to evade consequences.
• If the matter comes to light in the future, Bhushan could face scrutiny for failing to report the issue sooner, potentially risking his own job and reputation.

2. Report to Higher Management

Bhushan could choose to report the issue to higher management, fully disclosing Manoj’s fraudulent activities.

Merits:

• This ensures that Bhushan fulfills his professional duties and upholds the company’s ethical standards.
• It helps prevent further financial losses by addressing the issue immediately.
• Bhushan would be seen as acting with integrity, demonstrating honesty and responsibility within the company.

Demerits:

• Bhushan risks damaging his personal relationship with Manoj, who may feel betrayed.
• Bhushan could also be questioned as to why he waited until Manoj was leaving the company to report the issue, reflecting poorly on his proactivity.

3. Encourage Manoj to Report the Issue Himself

Bhushan could privately ask Manoj to report the issue to management, with the understanding that if Manoj refuses, Bhushan will do so.

Merits:

• This option allows Bhushan to balance his loyalty to his friend with his professional obligations.
• It shows emotional intelligence and empathy, giving Manoj the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions.
• Bhushan would avoid direct confrontation and maintain his friendship while still upholding ethical standards.

Demerits:

• Manoj may refuse to report the issue, which could strain their relationship.
• If Manoj doesn’t take action, Bhushan will still need to report the matter, potentially facing backlash from both Manoj and his colleagues.

Conclusion

The most balanced approach would be to encourage Manoj to take responsibility for his actions, as this allows Bhushan to preserve his friendship while maintaining his professional integrity. If Manoj refuses, Bhushan should then report the issue to the company, demonstrating empathy for Manoj’s circumstances while fulfilling his duties as an employee.

Model Answer

(a) What ethical dilemmas do you face in this situation?

Ethical Dilemmas in the Case of the Senior Officer

The case presents several ethical dilemmas faced by a senior officer of the Public Works Department (PWD) when balancing professional responsibility with external pressures. The following issues arise:

1. Professional Negligence

The senior officer is confronted with the legacy of prior clearance granted for the project. While the clearance happened before the officer’s tenure, the lack of thorough due diligence at that stage represents professional negligence. As a public servant, it is the officer’s duty to ensure that all aspects of the project meet safety and quality standards, raising concerns about accountability for past decisions (Source: Officer’s ethical responsibility).

2. Breach of Duty of Care

As the new officer in charge, the responsibility to ensure the safety and integrity of the construction now lies with the officer. There is a clear risk of structural failure, endangering the lives of patients, staff, and visitors, which is a breach of the duty of care owed to the public (Source: Officer’s professional responsibility).

3. Undue Influence and Impartiality

The officer faces pressure from higher-ups to expedite the project. This could lead to compromising impartiality, where decisions are influenced more by political or administrative convenience than by safety or quality (Source: Pressure from seniors).

4. Impact on Public Safety vs. Public Need

There is a conflict between the urgency of providing healthcare facilities and ensuring the building’s structural safety. This presents a moral dilemma: balancing immediate public need against long-term safety risks (Source: Ethical balance in public administration).

(b) Assess the available options.

Answer

Evaluation of Available Options

Option 1: Expedite Construction with Risk Mitigation

Pros:
Expediting the building’s construction can meet immediate political and public demands, offering short-term gains. Implementing basic safety measures can help reduce risks to human life while addressing urgent healthcare needs.
Cons:
While safety measures may provide some immediate relief, they might not fully mitigate long-term risks. This approach could undermine public trust in the Public Works Department (PWD) if adverse consequences occur. Additionally, it may compromise professional integrity and expose officers to legal liabilities.

Option 2: Prioritize Rectification of Structural Issues

Pros:
Addressing the structural concerns before proceeding with construction demonstrates a commitment to public safety and professional standards. It fosters transparency and accountability.
Cons:
This option could delay the project, disappointing the public who rely on timely healthcare services. There may also be resistance from political figures who prioritize quick project completion over safety concerns.

Option 3: Report to National-Level External Agencies

Pros:
This option ensures unbiased intervention, protecting public interest and maintaining ethical standards. Anonymity offers protection from potential departmental backlash.
Cons:
Reporting externally could escalate internal conflicts, leading to tension with superiors and political entities. It may also halt the project immediately, delaying vital infrastructure development.

(c) What approach would you take as the PWD officer, and what is the reasoning behind your choice?

Approach as PWD Officer

As the Public Works Department (PWD) officer, my primary responsibility is to ensure public safety and uphold the integrity of the administration. Given the potential structural issues, I would adopt the following approach:

Structural Assessment and Reporting

First, I would engage qualified structural engineers to conduct a comprehensive structural assessment of the project. The assessment would be done in accordance with the National Building Code of India (NBC), which sets standards for construction safety and quality (Source: National Building Code of India). This would allow us to identify any risks or defects that could jeopardize the integrity of the project.

Persuasion and Proposal

Based on the findings, I would prepare a detailed report outlining the structural flaws and potential risks. I would then present this information to senior officials and members of the ruling party, emphasizing the dangers of proceeding with substandard construction. Highlighting the future risk of collapse could significantly damage both the administration’s reputation and the ruling party’s image. I would also propose a corrective action plan, including a timeline and estimated costs for necessary repairs.

Ethical Responsibility and External Action

If internal efforts fail, I would consider discreetly sharing the findings with external regulatory agencies to ensure the issue is addressed. My priority would be public safety and transparency, demonstrating the courage to act in the public’s best interest despite potential institutional pressures.

This approach reflects both my ethical responsibility and commitment to upholding safety standards in public projects.

Roadmap for Answer Writing:

Introduction

• Start with an overview of the situation at hand: You are a newly appointed senior officer in the Public Works Department (PWD) overseeing a hospital project that has significant ethical and safety concerns.
• Briefly state the issue: The construction quality is substandard, and if completed as it is, the building could collapse, posing a grave risk to lives and public funds.

(a) Ethical Dilemmas in the Situation:

• Public Safety vs. Political Pressure: The core ethical dilemma revolves around the conflict between ensuring public safety (by addressing structural issues) and succumbing to political and public pressure to fast-track the project due to its importance for the ruling party and electoral promises.
• Accountability vs. Expediency: There is a dilemma between taking the necessary steps to correct the construction flaws (which could delay the project and incur additional costs) and ignoring or downplaying the risks to meet deadlines and political expectations.
• Professional Integrity vs. Political Influence: You must also weigh your duty as a senior officer, which involves maintaining ethical standards and accountability, against the influence and power of your superiors who may push you to overlook safety concerns for political gains.

(b) Assess the Available Options:

• Option 1: Complete the Project as It Is
  • Pros: The project will meet the deadline, and it aligns with the electoral promises of the ruling party.
  • Cons: The building is unsafe, risking lives and public funds, and it compromises your professional integrity.
• Option 2: Delay the Project and Address the Deficiencies
  • Pros: Ensures the safety and well-being of the public, upholds professional ethics, and ensures the long-term sustainability of the hospital.
  • Cons: Causes a delay, which may lead to political backlash, criticism from superiors, and possible loss of credibility among key stakeholders.
• Option 3: Seek an Independent Assessment and Mediation
  • Pros: Bringing in an independent authority or experts can provide a neutral and professional evaluation of the situation, reducing political pressure and ensuring safety.
  • Cons: The process could further delay the project, and there’s no guarantee that your superiors will agree with the findings.

(c) Approach to Take as the PWD Officer:

• Choice: The approach I would take is to delay the project, address the deficiencies, and ensure that the structure is safe for use.
  • Reasoning:
    • Public Safety: As a senior officer, my primary responsibility is to safeguard public safety. Overlooking substandard construction for political expediency compromises lives, which cannot be justified.
    • Professional Integrity: Upholding ethical standards in government work is crucial, and this decision reflects adherence to professional conduct, ensuring the long-term success of the project.
    • Long-Term Benefits: Even though the delay might have political and public relations consequences, a safe and structurally sound hospital will serve the community for many years, minimizing future risks and liabilities.
    • Transparency and Accountability: Communicating openly with superiors about the situation and advocating for an ethical solution that prioritizes safety will foster accountability and potentially garner support from other stakeholders in the long run.

Relevant Facts (H3 Format):

Fact 1: Safety Concerns

• The construction quality of the hospital building is substandard, and if completed, it could collapse, risking lives and public funds.

Fact 2: Political and Electoral Pressure

• The project is vital for providing healthcare services to the district and surrounding areas, making it a key campaign promise of the ruling party, which creates immense pressure to complete it quickly.

Fact 3: Risk of Ignoring Structural Deficiencies

• Ignoring the safety deficiencies may expedite the project but would lead to potential catastrophic consequences, endangering public lives and potentially resulting in severe legal and financial repercussions.

Fact 4: Ethical Responsibility of a Senior Officer

• As a senior officer in the Public Works Department, your responsibility is to ensure the safety, quality, and sustainability of public infrastructure, with a duty to maintain professional integrity despite external pressures.

Ethics Case Studies