Introduction This case presents a classic ethical dilemma of public safety versus expediency, reminiscent of the 2023 Morbi bridge collapse where negligence led to tragedy. The central ethical dilemma revolves around duty vs. morality, where the engineer's professional ethics clash with the Chief Engineer's directive, demanding application of the deontological approach.

Stakeholder Identification Executive Engineer, Junior Engineers, Chief Engineer, Contractor, General Public, Municipal Corporation.

Evaluation of Options and Proposed Course of Action

1. Following the Chief Engineer's advice, ignoring the safety lapse, is a dereliction of duty and a violation of professional ethics. This prioritizes short-term gain (timely completion) over long-term public safety, disregarding the common good and potentially leading to catastrophic consequences.

2. Making an exhaustive report and seeking written orders demonstrates professionalism and courage of conviction. This maintains transparency and establishes accountability within the chain of command, upholding due diligence. This documentation is crucial for legal and ethical protection, similar to the meticulous documentation maintained during the construction of the Chenab Bridge, prioritizing safety and accountability.

3. Calling for an explanation from Junior Engineers and issuing orders to the contractor is a necessary step in addressing the immediate issue. This upholds the hierarchy within the organization and ensures accountability for the deviations, reflecting the professionalism expected in engineering practices.

4. Highlighting the issue to higher authorities above the Chief Engineer is justified if the Chief Engineer remains unresponsive. This demonstrates a commitment to public safety and a refusal to compromise on ethical principles, even in the face of pressure from superiors, upholding the right to safety as per Article 21.

5. Seeking transfer or reporting sick is an abdication of responsibility. While understandable given the pressure, it fails to address the core issue of public safety and sets a negative precedent, contrasting with the commitment shown by E. Sreedharan, the "Metro Man," who consistently prioritized integrity and public good in his projects.

Proposed Course of Action:

1. Immediate Action: Document the observed deviations meticulously, including photographic evidence and detailed analysis of potential safety risks. This ensures due diligence and strengthens the engineer's position.
2. Internal Communication: Submit a comprehensive report to the Chief Engineer, reiterating the safety concerns and formally requesting written instructions. This maintains hierarchy and creates a record of the engineer's concerns.
3. Escalation: If the Chief Engineer remains unresponsive, escalate the matter to higher authorities within the Municipal Corporation, demonstrating courage of conviction and prioritizing public safety. This step should be taken with proper documentation and a clear explanation of the potential consequences of inaction.
4. External Communication (if necessary): As a last resort, if internal channels fail, consider whistleblowing to external regulatory bodies or the media. This should be done responsibly and ethically, ensuring all internal avenues have been exhausted.

Conclusion This case underscores the importance of professional ethics, courage of conviction, and prioritizing public safety over expediency. The engineer's primary duty is to the public, and this responsibility must be upheld even in the face of pressure from superiors. Positive initiatives like the establishment of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) highlight the importance of proactive measures for public safety. Moving forward, fostering a culture of ethical decision-making, transparent communication, and robust accountability mechanisms within organizations is crucial to preventing such dilemmas and ensuring public trust. This includes regular independent audits, ethical training programs, and clear whistleblowing policies.