Introduction This case highlights the ethical dilemma of personal gain versus public welfare, echoing the 2G spectrum scam where public resources were misused for private profit. The central ethical dilemma is choosing between loyalty to the Minister's directive, potentially benefiting personally, and upholding fiduciary duty to the public by preventing misuse of public funds and resources, best addressed through a deontological approach focusing on moral duty regardless of consequences. The 2G spectrum scam serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of prioritizing private gain over public welfare.

Stakeholder Identification Minister, Senior Officer, Officer's Wife, Farmers, Public, Government, Environment.

Answers

1. Course of Action:

   • Refuse the Minister's offer unequivocally, upholding the public trust doctrine and highlighting the potential conflict of interest. This aligns with deontological ethics, prioritizing duty over personal gain.
   • Document the Minister's proposal, creating an audit trail for potential investigations, ensuring transparency and accountability, addressing the issue of corruption.
   • Report the incident to the appropriate authorities (e.g., Central Vigilance Commission) demonstrating commitment to the rule of law and preventing abuse of power.
   • Advise the Minister on the ethical and legal ramifications of his actions, emphasizing the negative impact on public welfare and the environment.

2. Conflicts of Interest:

   • The Minister's personal interest in increasing his property value clashes with his duty to protect public resources, violating the public trust doctrine.
   • The offer to the officer creates a conflict between his personal gain and his fiduciary duty to the public, potentially leading to corruption.
   • Realigning the road for personal benefit necessitates acquiring more land, directly harming farmers and violating their rights.

3. Responsibilities as a Public Servant:

   • Upholding the rule of law, preventing corruption, and ensuring transparency in decision-making are paramount.
   • Prioritizing public welfare over personal gain, demonstrating integrity and avoiding conflict of interest.
   • Protecting the environment and minimizing harm to communities, adhering to the principles of sustainable development.
   • Maintaining accountability for decisions, ensuring responsible use of public funds, and acting with due diligence.
   • Resisting undue influence and acting with moral righteousness, even when facing pressure from superiors, as exemplified by Satyendra Dubey who exposed corruption in the Golden Quadrilateral project.

Conclusion This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct in public service. The officer's actions must prioritize public welfare and uphold the rule of law. The Right to Information Act empowers citizens to hold public officials accountable and promotes transparency. A robust whistleblower protection mechanism, similar to the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, is crucial to prevent such ethical dilemmas and safeguard public interest. Promoting ethical awareness and strengthening institutional oversight can prevent future occurrences of such conflicts of interest.