Introduction This case highlights a critical ethical dilemma concerning workplace harassment and its impact on individual well-being and organizational success. The Chief Architect's behavior, driven by insecurity and a threatened ego, directly contradicts professional ethics and creates a hostile work environment. Similar to the #MeToo movement, which exposed widespread workplace harassment, this case underscores the urgent need for ethical leadership. This case study will be examined through the lens of deontological ethics, focusing on the moral duty to create a just and respectful workplace.

Stakeholder Identification Additional Director General (ADG), Chief Architect, Seema, Project Team, CPWD.

(a) Ethical Issues Involved:

1. Workplace Harassment: The Chief Architect's actions constitute workplace harassment, creating a hostile and discriminatory environment for Seema. This violates her right to a safe and respectful workplace.
2. Abuse of Power and Hierarchy: The Chief Architect exploits his senior position and authority to intimidate and belittle Seema, demonstrating a lack of professionalism and integrity.
3. Compromise of Project Success: The harassment jeopardizes the project's success by undermining Seema's confidence and potentially leading to her resignation, thus depriving the project of her valuable contributions.
4. Damage to Organizational Morale and Reputation: The Chief Architect's behavior erodes trust and respect within the organization, impacting overall morale and potentially damaging the CPWD's reputation.
5. Violation of Justice and Fairness: Seema's talent and merit are disregarded due to the Chief Architect's personal insecurities, violating the principles of fairness and equal opportunity.
6. Undermining of Meritocracy: The Chief Architect's behavior undermines meritocracy by prioritizing seniority and personal ego over competence and valuable contributions.

(b) Options Available to the ADG:

1. Immediate Intervention and Private Reprimand: The ADG must privately reprimand the Chief Architect, emphasizing the severity of his actions and the organization's zero-tolerance policy towards harassment. This upholds the chain of command while addressing the issue directly.
2. Mediation and Conflict Resolution: Facilitate a mediated discussion between Seema and the Chief Architect to address the conflict, promote understanding, and establish professional boundaries. This fosters open communication and seeks a resolution.
3. Formal Warning and Performance Review: Issue a formal written warning to the Chief Architect, documenting the harassment and outlining the consequences of continued misconduct. This reinforces the seriousness of the situation and provides a record of accountability.
4. Reassignment or Supervision: If the harassment persists, consider reassigning Seema to a different team or placing the Chief Architect under closer supervision. This prioritizes Seema's well-being and ensures a productive work environment.
5. Leadership Training and Sensitization: Implement mandatory training programs on workplace ethics, harassment prevention, and respectful communication for all employees, including senior management. This promotes a culture of respect and professionalism.
6. Establish a Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Create a confidential and accessible grievance redressal mechanism for employees to report harassment and seek support. This empowers employees and ensures accountability. Similar to the Vishaka Guidelines, this mechanism would provide a formal channel for addressing complaints.

(c) ADG's Response to Seema and Preventive Measures:

1. Empathetic Support and Validation: The ADG should meet with Seema privately, express empathy for her experience, and validate her feelings. This demonstrates care and builds trust.
2. Assurance of Confidentiality and Support: Guarantee Seema confidentiality and assure her of the organization's commitment to addressing the issue. This fosters a sense of security and encourages open communication.
3. Reinforcement of Zero-Tolerance Policy: Clearly communicate the organization's zero-tolerance policy on workplace harassment and assure Seema that appropriate action will be taken. This upholds organizational values and reinforces accountability.
4. Empowerment and Agency: Encourage Seema to utilize the grievance redressal mechanism and offer support throughout the process. This empowers her to take control of the situation and seek justice.
5. Promote a Culture of Respect and Inclusion: Implement diversity and inclusion initiatives to foster a workplace culture that values respect, empathy, and equality. This creates a positive and supportive environment for all employees.
6. Regular Audits and Feedback Mechanisms: Conduct regular audits and establish feedback mechanisms to monitor workplace culture and identify potential issues proactively. This ensures continuous improvement and prevents future occurrences.

Conclusion This case underscores the importance of ethical leadership in addressing workplace harassment and promoting a just and respectful work environment. By prioritizing Seema's well-being, holding the Chief Architect accountable, and implementing preventive measures, the ADG can uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and professionalism within the CPWD. The POSH Act, enacted in India to address workplace sexual harassment, serves as a legal framework for organizations to establish preventive mechanisms. Moving forward, fostering a culture of respect and accountability is crucial for preventing such occurrences and ensuring a positive and productive work environment for all.