Case Study Arvind Mehta, a senior public servant, currently heads the Budget Division in the Ministry of Finance. His division is presently involved in allocating budgetary support to various states, four of which are scheduled to hold assembly elections within the current financial year. As per the latest Union Budget, more than Rs 8,300 crore was allocated to the National Housing Scheme (NHS), a key centrally sponsored welfare programme aimed at providing affordable housing to weaker sections. By June, Rs 775 crore had already been disbursed under the scheme. Parallelly, the Ministry of Commerce had been pursuing the establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in a southern state to promote exports. After nearly two years of consultation between the Centre and the state, the Union Cabinet gave its approval in August, and the process for acquiring land has since begun. In another development, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had proposed a natural gas processing plant in a northern state to support the regional gas grid, an essential element of the country's energy security strategy. The land for the project is already available, and after three rounds of global bidding, the contract was awarded to M/s XYZ Hydrocarbons, a multinational company. The first tranche of payment is scheduled for December. To meet the funding requirements of these two major development projects, an additional Rs 6,000 crore is required. It has been proposed that this amount be re-appropriated from the NHS budget. The file seeking approval for this re-allocation was sent to the Budget Division for examination and processing. On reviewing the file, Arvind Mehta became concerned. He realised that diverting funds from the NHS could delay its implementation, a scheme widely promoted by senior political figures and closely linked to electoral commitments. On the other hand, delaying fund allocation to the SEZ and the gas plant could lead to significant financial losses and reputational damage at both national and international levels. Upon raising the issue with his superiors, Arvind was advised that the matter is politically sensitive and must be expedited without delay. Question: a) Identify the ethical issues involved in reallocating funds from a welfare programme to development projects. b) In light of the responsibility to ensure prudent use of public resources, what options are available to Arvind Mehta? Would resigning from his post be a reasonable or ethical course of action?

Case Study You are the secretary of the public works department in a state. You are responsible for overseeing the construction and maintenance of various infrastructure projects in the state. Recently, a bridge that was built by your department collapsed, killing several people and injuring many others. The bridge was inaugurated just a few months ago and was supposed to be a model of engineering excellence. The public is outraged by this incident and blames your department for negligence and corruption. They demand your resignation and hold protests outside your office. Some media channels also accuse you of being involved in a scam and taking bribes from the contractor who built the bridge. You are shocked and saddened by this tragedy and want to find out the truth behind the collapse. You also want to defend your reputation and integrity, which you have earned through years of hard work and honesty. What will you do in this situation? Explain the ethical issues involved and the course of action you will take.

Suppose you are an officer-in-charge of implementing a social service scheme to provide support to old and destitute women. An old and illiterate woman comes to you to avail the benefits of the scheme. However, she has no documents to show that she fulfils the eligibility criteria. But after meeting her and listening to her you feel that she certainly needs support. Your enquirers also show that she is really destitute and living in a pitiable condition. You are in a dilemma as to what to do. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents would clearly be a violation of rules. But denying her the support would be cruel and inhuman. Can you think of a rational way to resolve this dilemma? Give your reasons for it.

Case Study Mr. Saurabh Singh is the District Magistrate of a district where the State Board examinations for Class 12 are currently underway. The district has a history of examination malpractices, including cheating, impersonation, and organised paper leaks. Determined to ensure fairness, Mr. Singh has implemented strict measures, installation of CCTV cameras, deployment of flying squads, and strict enforcement of anti-cheating laws. During an inspection of an examination centre in a rural area, a flying squad catches a group of students using unfair means. Among them is a meritorious girl student from an economically weaker background who is known in the village for her academic excellence and aspirations to pursue higher education. On questioning, she breaks down and reveals that she was under immense pressure from her family to secure top marks, as her scholarship and future prospects depend on her results. She admits that she made a mistake under stress. At the same time, local reports indicate that organised cheating rackets are still active in other centres, often involving collusion between invigilators and local influential persons. Civil society groups and media are closely watching the administration’s actions, praising strict enforcement but also cautioning against “over-penalisation” of vulnerable students. Some local leaders approach Mr. Singh informally, requesting leniency in this particular case, arguing that a harsh punishment could destroy the student’s future. On the other hand, education officials emphasise that any exception may weaken deterrence and send the wrong signal. Mr. Singh must decide how to respond in a way that upholds examination integrity, ensures fairness, and reflects compassion without compromising the rule of law. Questions 1. What are the ethical issues involved in this case? 2. What options are available to Mr. Singh? Evaluate the merits and demerits of each. 3. What should be the most appropriate course of action for Mr. Singh? Justify your answer in terms of ethical values and administrative responsibility.

Case Study A textile dyeing unit was set up seven years ago near a growing semi-urban area, approved by the state government to boost local employment and industrial growth. While it provided jobs to thousands and contributed to the local economy, the unit discharged untreated effluents into a nearby river, leading to severe water pollution. This has caused skin and respiratory diseases among residents, contaminated the groundwater, and damaged agricultural productivity in surrounding villages. Despite repeated complaints, no action was taken until the situation worsened, triggering widespread protests by farmers, environmental groups, and affected citizens. The protests have disrupted public order, forcing the government to consider shutting down the unit. However, closing the factory would result in mass unemployment for workers and affect businesses dependent on the dyes it produces. Additionally, ancillary industries and transporters linked to the unit would also face economic losses. As the District Magistrate, you are tasked with resolving the crisis and ensuring sustainable solutions to protect public health, restore environmental safety, and address economic concerns. Questions: 1. What are the stakeholders involved in this situation? 2. What are the ethical, social, and administrative challenges involved in this situation? 3. Suggest immediate and long-term measures to resolve the crisis while balancing the needs of the environment, public health, and the economy.

Case Study You are posted as a District Magistrate. You come to know about a situation in the village under your jurisdiction where the population is suffering from Anaemia. An initiative was taken to provide fortified rice to villagers in order to provide nutrition to them but villagers refuse to eat them as they have the misconception of the rice being the plastic rice. On the other hand, the village is also influenced by the Leftist movement and you get to know that Naxalites are using this public perception for their own benefit, making it more difficult for the government to reach the people. An alternate initiative was taken by providing iron tablets to people but it created another misconception among villagers that these tablets lead to more weight of babies in pregnant mothers leading to delivery complications. Thus, it also ended in failure. (a) What are the various issues involved in the above case study? (b) How will you change the perception of the people in the backdrop of the spread of misinformation by the Naxalites?

Case Study As the District Collector of a Suratwada district, you are overseeing a government-funded rural development project aimed at improving infrastructure. However, you soon discover that several contractors awarded the contracts for building roads, sanitation systems, and affordable housing have strong political ties to local and state-level politicians. These contractors, despite a history of substandard work and financial mismanagement in previous projects, continue to be awarded lucrative tenders due to their political leverage. Upon reviewing the project, you uncover that funds are being misused, with inflated costs and substandard materials being used in construction. Corrupt local officials are found to be complicit in manipulating the approval process. Despite knowing this, you face immense pressure from both your political superiors and influential local figures to allow the project to continue without intervention. Exposing the corruption could stall the project, affecting the district’s development and potentially harming your career, as the political backlash could lead to your transfer or disciplinary action. You are caught in a dilemma: Should you expose the corruption and risk your career and the completion of the project, or turn a blind eye, knowing that doing so would compromise your ethical duty to the public? The decision is further complicated by the knowledge that your actions could affect both the future of the project and your ability to carry out governance in the district. Questions: 1. What options are available to you to ensure that the corruption in the project is thoroughly investigated, while minimizing disruption to public services? 2. What course of action would you take to maintain your integrity and balance the investigation with the need for continued public service delivery? 3. What long-term reforms would you consider implementing in your district to prevent similar situations of corruption in future government projects, and how would you ensure that such reforms gain traction in the face of political and administrative resistance?