As a senior officer in the Ministry, you have access to important policy decisions and upcoming big announcements such as road constructions projects before they are notified in the public domain. The Ministry is about to announce a mega road project for which the drawings are already in place. Sufficient care was taken by the planners to make use of the government land with the minimum land acquisition from private parties. Compensation rate for private parties was also finalized as per government rules. Care was also taken to minimize deforestation. Once the project is announced, it is expected that there will be a huge spurt in real estate prices in and around that area.
Meanwhile, the Minister concerned insists that you realign the road in such a way that it comes closer to his 20 acres farmhouse. He also suggests that he would facilitate the purchase of a big plot of land in your wife name at the prevailing rate which is very nominal, in and around the proposed mega road project. He also tries to convince you by saying that there is no harm in it as he is buying the land legally. He even promises to supplement your savings in case you do not have sufficient funds to buy the land. However, by the act of realignment, a lot of agricultural lands has to be acquired, thereby causing a considerable financial burden on the government, and also the displacement of the farmers. As if this is not enough, it will involve cutting down of a large number of trees denuding the area of its green cover.
Faced with this situation, what will you do? Critically examine various conflicts of interest and explain what your responsibilities are as a public servant. (250 words)

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2018

20 Marks

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

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.
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.
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.

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