A Public Information Officer has received an application under the RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who party to these decisions were. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with the possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result in lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice.The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options: The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior. The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt with by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO. The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time, a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information. The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice.Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

The case presents a critical public safety dilemma where an Executive Engineer discovers serious structural deviations in a flyover construction that could compromise safety, while facing pressure from superiors to ignore the issues and complete the project on time.Stakeholders Primary Stakeholders: Executive Engineer, Chief Engineer, Junior Engineers, contractor, general public using the flyover Secondary Stakeholders: Municipal Corporation, traffic management authorities, media, political leadership Executive Engineer stakeholder diagram Evaluation of OptionsOption 1: Follow Chief Engineer's advice and proceed Pros | Cons ----------|---------- - Maintains hierarchical discipline and chain of command | - Compromises public safety and violates engineering ethics - Avoids immediate conflict with superior | - Potential legal liability under BNS Section 304A (negligence causing death) - Ensures timely project completion | - Violates constitutional duty under Article 21 (right to life) Option 2: Submit exhaustive written report seeking written orders Pros | Cons ----------|---------- - Creates documented evidence of safety concerns | - Chief Engineer may still issue written orders to proceed - Transfers responsibility burden to Chief Engineer | - Delays decision-making process - Follows proper administrative protocol | - May not prevent potential disaster - Protects against future legal consequences | - Could strain working relationship Option 3: Direct action with Junior Engineers and contractor Pros | Cons ----------|---------- - Addresses root cause through accountability measures | - Exceeds authority by overruling Chief Engineer - Ensures immediate corrective action | - May face disciplinary action for insubordination - Demonstrates leadership and responsibility | - Could create administrative chaos Option 4: Escalate to higher authorities Pros | Cons ----------|---------- - Ensures proper technical review by competent authority | - Violates chain of command principles - Protects public interest over bureaucratic pressure | - May damage career prospects permanently - Aligns with constitutional values and engineering ethics | - Could be perceived as whistleblowing - Prevents potential catastrophic failure | - May face retaliation from Chief Engineer Option 5: Seek transfer or report sick Pros | Cons ----------|---------- - Avoids personal conflict and career damage | - Abandons professional and moral responsibility - Removes personal liability from situation | - Allows potential public safety disaster - Preserves future career opportunities | - Violates civil service ethics and oath Recommended Course of ActionI would adopt Option 2 followed by Option 4 - first documenting concerns through written report, and if Chief Engineer still orders to proceed, escalating to higher authorities. This approach balances administrative propriety with public safety imperatives, ensuring both procedural compliance and ethical responsibility as mandated by civil service conduct rules."The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort, but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy."

A Public Information Officer has received an application under the RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who party to these decisions were. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with the possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result in lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice.

The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options:

1. The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior.
2. The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt with by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO.
3. The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time, a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information.
4. The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice.

Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2013

20 Marks

The case presents a critical public safety dilemma where an Executive Engineer discovers serious structural deviations in a flyover construction that could compromise safety, while facing pressure from superiors to ignore the issues and complete the project on time.

Stakeholders

Primary Stakeholders: Executive Engineer, Chief Engineer, Junior Engineers, contractor, general public using the flyover
Secondary Stakeholders: Municipal Corporation, traffic management authorities, media, political leadership
Executive Engineer stakeholder diagram

Evaluation of Options

Option 1: Follow Chief Engineer's advice and proceed

Pros	Cons
- Maintains hierarchical discipline and chain of command	- Compromises public safety and violates engineering ethics
- Avoids immediate conflict with superior	- Potential legal liability under BNS Section 304A (negligence causing death)
- Ensures timely project completion	- Violates constitutional duty under Article 21 (right to life)

Option 2: Submit exhaustive written report seeking written orders

Pros	Cons
- Creates documented evidence of safety concerns	- Chief Engineer may still issue written orders to proceed
- Transfers responsibility burden to Chief Engineer	- Delays decision-making process
- Follows proper administrative protocol	- May not prevent potential disaster
- Protects against future legal consequences	- Could strain working relationship

Option 3: Direct action with Junior Engineers and contractor

Pros	Cons
- Addresses root cause through accountability measures	- Exceeds authority by overruling Chief Engineer
- Ensures immediate corrective action	- May face disciplinary action for insubordination
- Demonstrates leadership and responsibility	- Could create administrative chaos

Option 4: Escalate to higher authorities

Pros	Cons
- Ensures proper technical review by competent authority	- Violates chain of command principles
- Protects public interest over bureaucratic pressure	- May damage career prospects permanently
- Aligns with constitutional values and engineering ethics	- Could be perceived as whistleblowing
- Prevents potential catastrophic failure	- May face retaliation from Chief Engineer

Option 5: Seek transfer or report sick

Pros	Cons
- Avoids personal conflict and career damage	- Abandons professional and moral responsibility
- Removes personal liability from situation	- Allows potential public safety disaster
- Preserves future career opportunities	- Violates civil service ethics and oath

Recommended Course of Action

I would adopt Option 2 followed by Option 4 - first documenting concerns through written report, and if Chief Engineer still orders to proceed, escalating to higher authorities. This approach balances administrative propriety with public safety imperatives, ensuring both procedural compliance and ethical responsibility as mandated by civil service conduct rules.

"The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort, but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy."

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

In just 60 sec