Case Study Arjun is an IAS officer posted as District Magistrate (DM) in a backward district. The district has recently been declared as an “Aspirational District” and is receiving special funds for education, health, and infrastructure development. During a routine review, Arjun discovers that a large portion of the education funds have been diverted by middle-level officials to construct a new VIP Guest House. The justification given is that frequent visits of ministers and senior bureaucrats require better accommodation facilities, which indirectly helps the district by attracting more attention and projects. Arjun confronts the officials, but they argue that: i. The project has political backing and halting it will upset powerful leaders. ii. The guest house is “technically within public interest.” iii. Exposing the misuse might delay other ongoing schemes due to political retaliation. At the same time, Arjun receives a complaint from local civil society groups that several schools lack even basic facilities like toilets, clean drinking water, and teachers. He realizes that continuing the misuse of funds will directly harm the education of children, worsening inequality. If he resists, he risks straining relations with political leaders, possible transfer, and jeopardizing his ability to work in the district. If he complies, the basic rights of children will be sacrificed. Questions (a) What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Arjun in this case? (b) If you were guiding young civil servants on this case, what ethical principles and leadership qualities would you emphasize for handling such dilemmas in public life? (c) Suggest the most appropriate course of action for Arjun, balancing administrative pragmatism with ethical responsibility.

Case Study You have recently taken charge as the District Collector of a semi-urban district dealing with frequent encroachment disputes and rising public expectations from the administration. Soon after assuming office, you notice that one of your junior officers, Raghav, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), has gained significant popularity on social media. He regularly posts updates of inspections, public interactions, and enforcement actions, portraying an image of an energetic and proactive officer. However, you gradually observe that his posts often include videos of surprise inspections, images of junior staff standing tensely behind him, and clips of punitive actions such as sealing shops—sometimes with strong captions like “Action speaks louder than words.” One such video of sealing a commercial establishment goes viral, drawing public praise but also criticism that procedural fairness was not clearly shown. Colleagues quietly mention that this public display of authority may create more fear than trust. Shopkeepers tell a senior police officer that they hesitate to visit the SDM office, worried that ordinary grievances may be recorded and posted online. An informal complaint from a local MLA describes the SDM’s conduct as “high-handed” and motivated by publicity. An anonymous petition also reaches your office alleging inadequate notice in the sealing operation, although the official records show non-compliance. You realise that the issue does not involve an obvious legal violation but presents subtle ethical dilemmas, the line between transparency and intimidation, the responsible use of social media, the dignity of individuals during enforcement, and the need for young officers to balance enthusiasm with institutional propriety. As District Collector, you must decide how to address the situation while preserving administrative integrity, maintaining the morale of a promising officer, and ensuring that citizens do not feel humiliated or threatened by the misuse, intentional or unintentional, of official power. Question: Q1.Identify the core ethical issues involved in this case. Explain their relevance to public administration. Q2. Do you think the SDM’s use of social media, though legal, raises ethical concerns? Justify your answer using principles of public service, propriety, and dignity of individuals. Q3. As the District Collector, what steps will you take to address the situation in a fair, balanced, and constructive manner? Provide short-term and long-term measures. Q4. Suggest a code of conduct or guidelines for civil servants’ use of social media that balances transparency, accountability, and ethical restraint.

Case Study Ananya Sharma is the Deputy Manager in a large public sector organization responsible for infrastructure development. The organisation has a strong technical reputation but suffers from a toxic work culture. Senior officers often shout at subordinates during meetings, take credit for juniors’ work, and discourage dissenting opinions. Long working hours without recognition have become the norm, leading to low morale and high staff turnover. Ananya observes that talented young officers hesitate to share innovative ideas due to fear of humiliation. Women employees, in particular, feel uncomfortable raising concerns, as informal networks dominated by senior male officers control decision-making. Although there is no explicit harassment, the environment is psychologically unsafe and demotivating. Recently, a capable junior officer, Ravi, made a small procedural error in a project file. Instead of constructive feedback, he was publicly reprimanded by a senior officer during a meeting. Deeply demoralized, Ravi applied for transfer, citing “personal reasons.” Similar incidents have become common, affecting productivity and team cohesion. As a mid-level officer, Ananya is respected by her team but has limited authority over senior officials. She believes that such a toxic work culture not only harms employee well-being but also compromises efficiency, innovation, and public service delivery. Ananya now faces a dilemma: whether to remain silent to protect her own career progression or take steps—formal or informal—to improve workplace culture, promote dignity, and uphold ethical values within the organization. Q1. Identify the ethical issues involved in the above case related to workplace culture. How do such issues affect employee morale, productivity, and organizational effectiveness? Q2.What ethical dilemmas does Ananya face as a mid-level officer in addressing toxic workplace practices? Discuss the possible courses of action available to her, highlighting their merits and limitations. Q3. How can ethical leadership and positive organizational culture contribute to improved governance and employee well-being? Suggest measures to promote a healthy and inclusive work environment in public institutions.

Case Study Puneet is a young and dynamic officer serving as the Director of the State Sports Council. His mandate is to promote sports at the grassroots level, improve infrastructure, and ensure fair selection of athletes for national and international competitions. During his tenure, Puneet receives multiple complaints from young athletes and coaches about rampant favoritism and corruption in the selection process for a prestigious international sports event. Allegations suggest that several underqualified candidates were selected due to political connections and bribes , while talented athletes, especially from economically weaker backgrounds, were ignored. Upon investigation, Puneet finds strong evidence of malpractice involving senior officials, influential politicians, and sports federation members. When he raises the issue with his superiors, he is advised to “look the other way” as the individuals involved are politically powerful. Some officials warn him that exposing the issue could lead to career repercussions, frequent transfers, or administrative sidelining. Athletes and their families have intensified their protests, demanding justice and transparency, sparking mass public outrage. The issue has gained widespread media attention, putting significant pressure on the authorities to act. Meanwhile, a well-known journalist approaches Puneet, seeking insider information to expose the scandal. However, Puneet faces a dilemma: taking action against the malpractice could delay the team selection process, potentially jeopardizing the country’s participation in the prestigious event, while inaction would compromise his integrity and the principles of fairness and accountability. Questions: 1. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Puneet in this situation? 2. Evaluate the possible courses of action Puneet can take in this scenario. Discuss the merits and consequences of each approach in light of his ethical responsibilities and the public interest. 3. What institutional and grassroots-level reforms can be implemented to prevent favoritism and corruption in sports governance and ensure fair opportunities for athletes, especially those from economically weaker backgrounds?

Case Study You are working as a senior officer in a public sector company. One day, a junior colleague, who is known for her diligence and commitment, approaches you in a distressed state. She informs you that her younger brother, a final-year engineering student, has been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness requiring urgent treatment costing Rs. 8 lakh. Being the sole breadwinner in her family, she is struggling to arrange the funds, as her meager salary barely covers her household expenses. You sympathize with her situation but are unable to provide financial assistance personally. A month later, you notice her spirits have improved, and upon inquiry, she reveals that the treatment is underway, thanks to an advance payment facilitated by the head of the department using discretionary funds allocated for emergency employee welfare. She also shares that she has committed to repaying the amount in monthly installments, which she has already begun. However, on reviewing the company's guidelines, you realize that the discretionary fund is meant strictly for official purposes and not for personal use under any circumstances. The department head's action, though well-intentioned, bypassed standard procedures and could attract legal and disciplinary consequences if discovered. (a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case? (b) As a senior officer aware of the situation, what course of action will you take? (c) Suggest broader organizational measures to prevent misuse of discretionary funds.

Case Study Ms. Riya Malhotra is serving as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in a backward, drought-prone block where a large section of the population depends on government welfare schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), pensions, and employment under MGNREGA. During a routine inspection, Ms. Malhotra discovers serious irregularities in the local PDS system. Several fair price shop dealers have been diverting subsidised food grains to the open market with the alleged connivance of lower-level revenue and supply officials. Digital records show compliance, but ground verification and beneficiary testimonies indicate widespread exclusion of genuine households. If strict action is taken immediately, such as suspension of dealers and officials, there is a risk of disruption in food supply for thousands of vulnerable families in the short term. Moreover, some of the accused officials are known to be politically well-connected, and informal messages reach Ms. Malhotra advising her to “handle the matter sensitively” to avoid controversy. At the same time, civil society organisations and local media have begun highlighting the issue, questioning the administration’s commitment to transparency and justice. With the lean agricultural season approaching, any prolonged disruption in welfare delivery could worsen hunger and distress. Ms. Malhotra must decide how to act in a manner that ensures justice, protects the vulnerable, and upholds administrative integrity. Questions 1. What are the ethical issues involved in this case? 2. What options are available to Ms. Malhotra? Examine the merits and demerits of each. 3. What course of action should Ms. Malhotra adopt? Justify your answer in terms of ethical values, public interest, and administrative responsibility.

Case Study Dr. Anjali, a dedicated and upright IAS officer, has recently been appointed as the Director of the State Health Department. Soon after assuming charge, she discovers large-scale irregularities in the procurement of life-saving medical equipment for government hospitals. A particular contract for ventilators was awarded to a private company that failed to meet safety and quality standards. Several patients lost their lives due to malfunctions during a recent health crisis. Upon further investigation, Anjali finds that the tendering process was manipulated to favor this company. The procurement file was approved under questionable circumstances by her predecessor, who has since retired. Many junior officials in the department are aware of these malpractices but are unwilling to come forward, fearing professional repercussions. Meanwhile, a senior journalist approaches Anjali with leaked documents proving corruption in the procurement deal. The journalist is willing to publish an exposé but warns that powerful business and bureaucratic interests may suppress the story. Additionally, an activist group files a formal complaint demanding immediate legal action. As Anjali deliberates, she receives subtle pressure from senior bureaucrats to avoid revisiting past decisions due to risk of transfer under political influence and to focus on future governance. Some of her colleagues advise her that pursuing this issue aggressively could result in an abrupt transfer or administrative sidelining. 1. What are the ethical issues involved in the case? 2. Evaluate the options available to Anjali as a conscientious civil servant? 3. What systemic reforms are needed to prevent corruption in public procurement, ensure bureaucratic independence, and protect whistleblowers in government institutions?