You are the Executive Director of an upcoming InfoTech Company that is making a name for itself in the market. Mr. A, who is a star performer, is heading the marketing team. In a short period of one year, he has helped in doubling the revenues as well as creating a high brand equity for the Company so much so that you are thinking of promoting him. However, you have been receiving information from many corners about his attitude towards the female colleagues; particularly his habit of making loose comments on women. In addition, he regularly sends indecent SMS to all the team members including his female colleagues. One day, late in the evening, Mrs. X, who is one of Mr. A’s team members, comes to you visibly disturbed. She complains about the continued misconduct of Mr. A, who has been making undesirable advances toward her and has even tried to touch her inappropriately in his cabin. She tenders her resignation and leaves your office.

a) What are the options available to you?

b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option you would adopt, giving reasons.

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2013

20 Marks

The case presents a conflict between transparency obligations and self-preservation where a Public Information Officer faces potential disciplinary action for disclosing information about his own questionable decisions under the RTI Act. This dilemma tests the fundamental principles of administrative accountability versus personal consequences in public service.

Stakeholders

Primary Stakeholders: PIO, RTI applicant, colleagues involved in decisions, superior officers
Secondary Stakeholders: Public at large, RTI system integrity, department reputation

PIO stakeholder diagram

Evaluation of Given Options

Option 1: Refer to superior officer and act on advice despite disagreement

Pros	Cons
- Follows hierarchical protocol and chain of command	- Abdication of personal responsibility and ethical judgment
- Shares accountability burden with superior authority	- May lead to institutional cover-up compromising RTI principles
- Maintains administrative discipline and procedural compliance	- Violates Section 4 of RTI Act requiring proactive disclosure
- Protects from individual blame in controversial decisions	- Creates precedent for avoiding transparency through hierarchy

Option 2: Proceed on leave or transfer application to avoid handling

Pros	Cons
- Avoids direct conflict of interest situation	- Clear dereliction of statutory duty under RTI Act
- Prevents personal bias from affecting information disclosure	- Violates Section 7 timeline requirements causing applicant harassment
- Allows fresh perspective from uninvolved officer	- Sets dangerous precedent for PIOs avoiding difficult cases
- Maintains plausible deniability for personal protection	- May constitute misconduct under All India Services Rules

Option 3: Compromise information content considering career implications

Pros	Cons
- Balances personal survival with partial transparency	- Direct violation of Section 4 and 19 of RTI Act
- Minimizes damage to department's public image	- Breach of oath of office and constitutional duty
- Protects colleagues from unnecessary career damage	- Punishable under Section 20 with penalties and prosecution
- Maintains some level of information sharing	- Undermines entire RTI framework and public trust

Option 4: Consult colleagues and act per their collective advice

Pros	Cons
- Ensures collective responsibility for sensitive decisions	- Creates conflict of interest as colleagues are affected parties
- Builds consensus among stakeholders involved	- May lead to collective conspiracy to suppress information
- Shares burden of difficult ethical choice	- Violates independent functioning principle of RTI Act
- Maintains team cohesion and workplace relationships	- Compromises objectivity required for information disclosure

Recommended Course of Action

Immediate Steps:

Acknowledge the RTI application within prescribed timeline under Section 7
Conduct thorough self-assessment of decisions using administrative review principles
Document all relevant information objectively without personal bias
Prepare complete disclosure as mandated by Article 19(1) and RTI provisions

Disclosure Strategy:

Provide complete truthful information as required under Section 4 of RTI Act
Include factual context explaining circumstances of original decisions
Reference relevant administrative guidelines and procedures followed
Maintain professional tone focusing on systemic rather than personal failures

Accountability Framework:

Proactively inform superior about potential disciplinary implications
Prepare detailed explanation of decision-making process for review
Demonstrate commitment to transparency and administrative reforms
Seek guidance on corrective measures rather than cover-up strategies

Long-term Approach:

Use this experience to strengthen internal audit mechanisms
Advocate for better decision-making protocols in department
Contribute to capacity building programs for administrative excellence
Become champion of RTI compliance and ethical governance

The path of complete transparency, despite personal costs, upholds the constitutional spirit and strengthens democratic institutions. "Truth never damages a cause that is just" - embracing accountability transforms individual challenges into systemic improvements for better governance.

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