A General Framework to Solve Ethics Case Studies 

Use this as a step-by-step checklist while writing answers. It blends facts → ethics → law → options → decision → implementation → reflection and embeds the main ethical lenses.

1) Identify the Ethical Issues (what’s really at stake)

• Who could be harmed or unfairly benefited? Are we choosing between two goods or two bads?
• Is this more than legal/efficient—does it touch rights, dignity, fairness, trust, environment?

Keywords: public trust, constitutional morality, dignity, equity, transparency, intergenerational justice.

2) Get the Facts (don’t assume)

• Knowns/unknowns: What facts are clear? What’s missing? What must be verified?
• Stakeholders: Direct (complainant, beneficiaries, staff) and indirect (community, future users, environment).
• Options space: List realistic alternatives (incl. “do nothing” if relevant).
• Tip: Separate facts from allegations. Note any time-critical constraints.

3) Relevant Rules & Duties (ethical–legal compass)

• Law/Rules: Constitution (Arts. 14, 21), RTI, Conduct Rules, procurement norms, POSH, data protection, environmental laws, local SOPs.
• Doctrines/Tests: Rule of Law, audi alteram partem (hear both sides), necessity–proportionality–least harm, public trust doctrine.
• Name-drops: Nolan Principles (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership); Gandhian talisman (weakest first).

4) Generate Options (3–4 credible choices)

• Each option should be lawful and operational (who/what/when).
• Add mitigations (e.g., safeguards, phased rollout).

5) Evaluate Alternatives (use lenses + quick tests)

Ethical lenses

• Rights Lens: Whose rights (privacy, due process, livelihood) are protected?
• Justice Lens: Is it fair, non-arbitrary, proportionate?
• Utilitarian Lens: Net welfare—most good / least harm short & long term.
• Common Good Lens: Does it strengthen shared systems (public health, environment, trust)?
• Virtue Lens: Would a person of integrity/courage do this?
• Care Lens: Does it consider vulnerable groups compassionately?

Pass–Fail tests

• Legality & due process (speaking order, notice, hearing).
• Proportionality & least harm.
• Transparency/defensibility: Can I defend it publicly?
• Feasibility & timeliness.
• Sustainability: fiscal & environmental.

6) Choose & Stress-Test the Option

• Pick the option that passes the most lenses and tests.
• Public disclosure test: If read on the front page, would it seem fair and reasoned?
• Role-model test: Does it set the right precedent?
  

7) Implementation Plan (turn ethics into action)

• Steps & timeline: who does what, by when.
• Safeguards: records, approvals, maker–checker, monitoring metrics.
• Communication: notice, FAQs, grievance redress with SLAs.
• Documentation: reasoned (speaking) order; audit trail.

8) Reflect & Prevent Recurrence

• After-Action Review: What worked, what failed, lessons.
• System fix: SOP update, training, rotation, audits, transparency improvements.

Q.7 — Vijay was Deputy Commissioner of remote district of Hilly Northern State of the country for the last two years. In the month of August heavy rains lashed the complete state followed by cloud burst in the upper reaches of the said district. The damage was very heavy in the complete state especially in the affected district. The complete road network and telecommunication were disrupted and the buildings were damaged extensively. People’s houses have been destroyed and they were forced to stay in open. More than 200 people have been killed and about 5000 were badly injured. The Civil Administration under Vijay got activated and started conducting rescue and relief operations. Temporary shelter camps and hospitals were established to provide shelter and medical facilities to the homeless and injured people. Helicopter services were pressed in, for evacuating sick and old people from remote areas. Vijay got a message from his hometown in Kerala that his mother was seriously sick. After two days Vijay received the unfortunate message that his mother has expired. Vijay has no close relative except one elder sister who was US citizen and staying there for last several years. In the meantime, the situation in the affected district deteriorated further due to resumption of heavy rains after a gap of five days. At the same time, continuous messages were coming on his mobile from his hometown to reach at the earliest for performing last rites of his mother.

(a) What are the options available with Vijay?
(b) What are the ethical dilemma being faced by Vijay?
(c) Critically evaluate and examine each of these options identified by Vijay.
(d) Which of the options, do you think, would be most appropriate for Vijay to adopt and why?
(Answer in 250 words) 20

Context (in brief)

A cloudburst has devastated a remote district: roads/telecom down, 200+ dead, ~5,000 injured. Camps and field hospitals are running; helicopters are evacuating the frail. In the middle of this, DC Vijay learns his mother has passed away in Kerala. He must balance an immediate public duty with an acute filial duty.

Ethical compass

Put life and dignity first (Art. 21; DM Act). Act lawfully, proportionately, transparently, and with care for both citizens and family. Choose a path that saves most lives with least harm and is defensible in the public eye.

(a) Real options (with reasoning)

• A. Leave now using a relief helicopter
  Disaster air assets are for medevac/rescue. Personal use delays evacuations and erodes trust. Reject.
• B. Leave now by private travel; informal handover
  The first 72 hours decide survival. An informal handover risks gaps, mixed orders, and loss of momentum. Weak.
• C. Stay through peak rescue (24–72 hrs), formalise command, then take short, sanctioned compassionate leave; monitor remotely; return fast
  Maintains lives-first operations, respects service rules, allows brief presence for rites. Best balance.
• D. Ask for immediate replacement
  Mid-crisis change creates transition friction and time lost to re-briefing. Partial.

(b) Why this is genuinely hard — Ethical dilemmas

• Personal duty vs Public duty: Role morality demands prioritising citizens’ survival; filial piety compels immediate presence.
• Deontological duty vs Personal interest: Deontology (duty to office, law, oaths) demands staying; personal grief seeks departure.
• Empathy vs Family obligations: Care ethics extends empathy to thousands in distress, yet authentic empathy also recognises family loss; timing and proportionality are key.

(c) Most appropriate course — Option C (with “why” behind each step)

• Stabilise first 72 hours
  Stand up ICS/Unified Command: 24×7 EOC; named chiefs (Ops/Log/Planning/Finance). Why: Clear roles cut delay/duplication.
  Immediate priorities: search & rescue; triage/medevac; potable water, sanitation, food, shelter; open one road + one comms link first. Why: One corridor + one channel unblocks everything else.
  Resource grid: requisition PWD/BRO/Army–Air; secure fuel/food/medicines; 12-hour shifts. Why: Fatigue ruins judgment.
  Information & trust: verified bulletins every 8 hours; camp helplines; rumour control. Why: Cuts panic and misallocation.
  Transparency: camp-wise lists, entitlements, donations dashboard. Why: Fewer complaints/leakages.
• Clean handover + brief leave
  Speaking order naming Acting Incident Commander; hand over logs, maps, contacts; set 48–72 hr targets.
  Apply for compassionate leave; use no disaster assets.
  If family agrees, authorise relative for rites; attend virtually; maintain satphone/SMS check-ins.
  Return promptly; lead an After-Action Review.

(d) Ethical values — why this course is right

Emotional Intelligence: self-regulation under grief; clear, calm communication sustains teams.
Leadership: visible, principled presence → morale and coordination; lawful delegation prevents drift.
Niṣkāma Karma (Gita): doing duty without clinging to personal outcomes; place public life-saving first, then attend rites.
Rawlsian Justice (maximin): prioritise the worst-off (injured, stranded) before personal claims; fairness seen and felt.

(e) Longer-term resilience (with “why”)

Early warning & micro-zonation; all-weather links (modular bridges, stocked depots); Aapda Mitra & school drills; pre-arranged logistics MoUs; clean data/oversight (e-vouchers, social audit); responder well-being (rotation, counselling). Why: Minutes saved = lives saved; systems beat heroics.

Conclusion

Stay to save lives, then step away briefly with a clean, lawful handover. This honours constitutional duty and family, keeps relief momentum, avoids misuse of resources, and models steady, humane leadership. As Gandhi said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

Q. 8 In line with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the government has a constitutional obligation to ensure basic needs “Roti, Kapda aur Makan (Food, Clothes and Shelter)” – for the under-privileged. Pursuing this mandate, the district administration proposed clearing a portion of forest land to develop housing for the homeless and economically weaker sections of the society. The proposed land, however, is an ecologically sensitive zone densely populated with age-old trees, medicinal plants and vital biodiversity. Besides, these forests help to regulate micro-climate and rainfalls; provide habitat for wildlife, support soil fertility and prevent land/soil erosion and sustain livelihoods of tribal and nomadic communities. Inspite of the ecological and social costs, the administration argues in favour of the said proposal by highlighting that this very initiative addresses fundamental human rights as a critical welfare priority. Besides, it fulfils the government’s duty to uplift and empower the poor through inclusive housing development. Further, these forest areas have become unsafe due to wild-animal threats and recurring human-wild life conflicts. Lastly, clearing forest-zones may help to curb anti-social elements allegedly using these areas as hideouts, thereby enhancing law and order.

(a) Can deforestation be ethically justified in the pursuit of social welfare objectives like, housing for the homeless?
(b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development?
(c) What substantial alternatives or policy interventions can be proposed to ensure that both environmental integrity and human dignity are protected?
(Answer in 250 words) 20

Facts (summary)

District proposes EWS housing by clearing an ecologically sensitive forest that regulates micro-climate, hosts biodiversity/medicinals, prevents erosion, and sustains tribal/nomadic livelihoods. Administration cites DPSP welfare (food–clothes–shelter), human–wildlife conflict (HWC) and law-and-order concerns.

Stakeholders

Homeless/EWS families; tribal & nomadic communities; wildlife & ecosystems; future generations; district/forest/urban agencies; police/judiciary; taxpayers & civil society.

Ethical–Legal frame

DPSP (Arts. 38–39); Arts. 48A & 51A(g); FRA 2006, WLPA, Forest (Conservation) law; LARR 2013 (R&R); doctrines of Public Trust, Sustainable Development, Precaution, Intergenerational Equity; Constitutional morality.

(a) Is deforestation ethically justified for housing?

Kant/Duty: State owes welfare and environmental protection—neither duty can be ignored.
Rights-based & Care ethics: Forest dwellers’ livelihood, culture, dignity demand protection.
Rawls/Justice: From the veil of ignorance, we wouldn’t load ecological burdens on the least-advantaged.
Utilitarianism: Short-term housing gains may be outweighed by long-term losses (water stress, disasters, health).
Proportionality/Least-restrictive means: Only if necessity is proven and non-forest options are exhausted, with FPIC-like consent, narrow footprint, and robust offsets, could a limited intervention be defensible.
Verdict: Not justified per se; at most a last-resort, strictly lawful and least-harm approach.

(b) Key challenges

• Socio-economic: Displacement; loss of NTFPs; cultural rupture; HWC escalation if habitats fragment.
• Administrative: Weak land records; poor/cumulative EIAs; inter-departmental silos; monitoring & grievance gaps; builder capture.
• Ethical: Genuine consent (women/tribal voice), privacy in surveys, intergenerational equity, transparency vs security.

(c) Substantial alternatives/policy interventions

• Site strategy: Brownfields/wastelands, surplus govt land, in-situ slum upgradation, densification/TOD; rental vouchers; inclusionary zoning; community land trusts.
• Due process & science: FRA title recognition, Gram Sabha consent, Strategic/Cumulative EIA, wildlife-corridor mapping; No-Go zones; LARR-grade R&R.
• Design & finance: Compact/vertical EWS, green buildings, water-sensitive urbanism; PMAY-U/R, land-value capture; third-party audits.
• HWC & law/order: Early-warning, compensation, habitat management, targeted policing—not blanket clearing.

Long-term / Way forward

Landscape-level planning: Mandatory Strategic Environmental Assessment and carrying-capacity limits for districts.
Eco-sensitive zoning: Digitally notify No-Go / Go-with-conditions areas; integrate with GatiShakti for siting housing on non-forest land.
Ecological fiscal transfers (EFT) & PES: Incentivise states/ULBs to conserve forests; pay communities for ecosystem services.
Community forest governance 2.0: Strengthen FRA-Gram Sabha management; benefit-sharing from eco-tourism/NTFP value chains.
Climate-resilient affordable housing code: Mandate green, water-sensitive designs; fund via green/municipal bonds and land-value capture.
HWC mitigation system: Corridors, early-warning tech, rapid compensation, trained eco-guards.
Transparency & monitoring: Satellite/geo-tag tracking, public dashboards, independent environmental ombudsperson, periodic social & environmental audits.

Conclusion

Apply necessity–proportionality–least-harm within constitutional morality: house people without homeless nature—so development is lawful, just, and sustainable.

Q. 9 Subash is Secretary, PWD in the State Government. He is a senior officer, known for his competence, integrity and dedication to work. He enjoys the trust and confidence of Minister Incharge of PWD and Programme Implementation. As a of his job profile, he is responsible projects relating to infrastructure initiatives in the State. Besides, he oversees the technical and administrative aspects relating to planning, designing and construction etc.

Subash’s Minister is an important Minister in the state and significant growth in urban infrastructure development and road network has been registered during his tenure. He is very keen for launching of ambitious road construction project in the near future.
Subash is in regular touch with the Minister and is working various modalities of road construction project. Regular meetings, interactions and presentations are made by him to the Minister before a formal public announcement of the project is made by the Minister. Subash’s only son Vikas is in real estate business. His son from his own sources is aware that a mega road project is on the anvil and announcement in this regard is expected anytime. He is very keen to know from his father the exact location of the upcoming project. He knows that there would be quantum jump in the prices of land in the vicinity. Buying land at this stage at cheaper prices would pay him rich dividends. He is pleading with him (his father) day in and day out to share him location of the proposed project. He assured him that he would handle the matter discretely as it would not attract any adverse notice as he in the normal course, keeps on buying land as a part of his business. He feels pressurised because of constant pleadings by his son.
Another significant aspect of the matter pertained to the extra/undue interest in the above project by the Minister PWD. His nephew was also having big infrastructure project company. In fact, the Minister has also introduced his nephew to him and indicated to him to take care of his nephew’s business interest in the forthcoming project. The Minister encouraged him to act fast in the matter as early announcement and execution of mega road project would enhance his status in the party and public life.
In the above backdrop, Subash is in a fix as to the future course of action.
(a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case.
(b) Critically examine the options available to Subash in the above situation.
(c) Which of the above would be most appropriate and why ?
(Answer in 250 words) 20

Context (facts in brief)

Subash, a respected PWD Secretary, is finalising a mega road project. His real-estate–dealer son repeatedly asks for the exact alignment (price-sensitive, non-public info) to buy land early. The Minister pushes for quick announcement and casually indicates that his nephew’s infra firm should be “taken care of.” Subash faces family pressure and political nudging while holding a high-trust office.

Stakeholders (why it matters)

Citizens/taxpayers and road users; affected landowners; competing bidders/MSMEs; PWD engineers; Subash & family; Minister & nephew; vigilance/CAG; media/judiciary; long-term credibility of the State.

Ethical–legal compass (anchoring)

Rule of Law, Constitutional morality; Conflict of Interest (COI); misuse of official information; impartiality/level playing field; Nolan Principles; Conduct Rules; GFR/CVC procurement norms; Prevention of Corruption Act (undue advantage); Public-Trust/Fair-Competition doctrines.

(a) Ethical issues

At heart this is a clash between duty and loyalty: Deontologically, the office demands fidelity to rules and fairness; emotionally, Subash is being tugged by kinship and political proximity.
COI & insider information: Son’s request = converting non-public alignment into private gain.
Nepotism/favouritism: Minister’s hint violates impartiality, distorts competition.
Justice & public interest: Insider land grabs inflate costs, hurt small landholders—fails Rawlsian fairness and utilitarian welfare.
Transparency/accountability: Any opaque sharing is indefensible publicly; high vigilance/CAG risk.

(b) Options with evaluation

• A. Share route / tilt to nephew – Illegal; fails rights/justice/public interest. Reject.
• B. Quiet refusal only – Lawful but weak on accountability; pressure persists; future allegations possible. Insufficient.
• C. Formal COI management + procurement firewall (clean path) –
  Refuse disclosure; written COI to Chief Secretary; recusal/ring-fencing from corridor selection/land acquisition.
  Run e-procurement, pre-declared eligibility, independent bid committee, Integrity Pact/IEM; equal information via minuted pre-bids; speaking note to Minister; seek written directions; record dissent and escalate if unlawful.
  Passes legality, rights, justice, transparency, feasibility, sustainability. Best.
• D. Seek transfer – Reduces heat but abdicates stewardship; process may get tainted anyway. Partial.

Implementation & prevention (action plan)

Immediately: file written COI disclosure; refuse son’s request; counsel him to pause purchases; document interactions.
Procurement firewall: publish corridor alternatives only post-approval; e-procurement, Integrity Pact, independent evaluation, full audit trails.
Minister interface: rule-based speaking note; seek written instructions; escalate unlawful directions (CS/CM/Vigilance).
Monitoring: third-party/quality audits; public milestone dashboard; bidder grievance window with SLAs.
Culture: quarterly COI declarations; rotation of sensitive posts; ethics & procurement training.

Way forward (institutional safeguards)

COI Register and mandatory annual disclosures; recusal protocols.
Open-contracting data (bid→award→payments), anti-collusion affidavits, blacklisting policy.
Information barriers for price-sensitive alignment; time-stamped public releases.
Independent External Monitors; concurrent/CAG audits; project microsite and RTI-friendly records.

(c) Most appropriate & why (mixed justification)

Choose Option C. It integrates Deontology/Kant (duty to rules), Rights-based ethics (level playing field), Rawlsian justice (fair process, protects least-advantaged landholders), Utilitarianism (lower costs, better outcomes), and Virtue ethics (integrity, courage). It is lawful, publicly defensible, feasible, and durable.

Conclusion: By disclosing COI, erecting a procurement firewall, and insisting on rules-first transparency, Subash safeguards public money and trust—showing that clean process is the surest path to effective infrastructure and legitimate politics.

Q. 10 Rajesh is a Group A officer with nine years of service. He is posted as Administrative Officer in an Oil Public Sector undertaking. As an Administrative Officer he is responsible for managing and coordinating various administrative tasks to ensure smooth functioning of office. He also manages office supplies, equipment etc.

Rajesh is now sufficient senior and is expecting his next promotion in JAG (Junior Administrative Grade) in the next one or two years, He knows that promotion is based on examination of ACRs/Performance Appraisal of last few years (5 years or so) of an officer by a DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) and an officer lacking requisite grading of ACRs may not be found fit for promotion. Consequences of losing promotion may entail financial and reputational loss and set-back for career progression. Though he also puts his best efforts in official discharge of his duties, yet he is unsure of assessment by his superior officer. He is now putting extra efforts so that he gets thumping report at the end of financial year.
As Administrative Officer, Rajesh is regularly interacting with his immediate boss, who is his reporting officer for writing his ACR. One day he calls Rajesh and wants him to buy computer-related stationery on priority from a particular vendor Rajesh instructs his office to initiate action for procuring these items. During the day, the dealing Assistant brings an estimate of Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs covering all stationery items from the same vendor. It is noticed that as per delegated financial powers, as provided in the GFR (General Financial Rules) as applicable in that Organisation, expenditure for office items exceeding Rupees Thirty Lakhs requires sanction of the next higher authority (boss in the present case). Rajesh knows that immediate superior would expect all these purchases should be done at his level and may not appreciate such lack of initiative on his part. During discussions with office, he learns that common practice of splitting of expenditure (where large order is divided into a series of smaller ones) is followed to avoid obtaining sanction from higher authority. This practice is against the rules and may come to the adverse notice of Audit.
Rajesh is perturbed. He is unsure of taking decision in the matter.
(a) What are the options available with Rajesh in the above situation ?
(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(c) Which would be the most appropriate option for Rajesh and why?
(Answer in 250 words) 20

Context (in brief)

Rajesh, a Group-A Administrative Officer in an Oil PSU, must urgently procure computer stationery worth ₹35 lakh. Under the organisation’s GFR/CVC–based delegation, any spend above ₹30 lakh needs sanction from the next higher authority. Colleagues suggest splitting the order so approval stays at his level. He worries about displeasing his reporting officer (who writes his ACR) but knows that splitting is against rules and attracts audit/vigilance risk.

Who is affected

Taxpayers and the PSU, office users who need the supplies, competing vendors and MSMEs who deserve a level playing field, Rajesh and his supervisor, Finance/Procurement/Audit/Vigilance/CAG, and public trust in the PSU.

Guiding principles

Rule of Law, integrity, fairness, transparency; GFR/CVC prohibitions on bid-splitting; Conduct Rules on misuse of position; Prevention of Corruption safeguards. Ethical lenses: deontology (duty to rules), utilitarian (public value), Rawlsian justice (fair process), virtue ethics (moral courage).

(a) Options available and what they mean

• Split the order into sub-₹30 lakh lots
  This is rule evasion. It distorts competition, risks higher prices, and is indefensible before audit or vigilance. Reject.
• Send the full ₹35 lakh file for higher sanction and otherwise continue as usual
  Legal, but without a clear plan it leaves ambiguity and pressure intact, and may be perceived as non-cooperation.
• Use a lawful fast-track with safeguards
  Balances speed and integrity. Rajesh explains urgency in a speaking note, seeks the competent sanction immediately, and uses GeM or an e-tender with clear specifications, standard documents, adequate competition, and tight timelines. If operations would otherwise stop, he purchases only the minimum critical quantity within his powers with recorded reasons, while the main tender proceeds. All interactions recorded; written directions are sought if pressed; unlawful directions are dissented from and, if needed, escalated.
• Seek transfer or lodge a vigilance complaint right away
  May reduce personal heat but abdicates stewardship and can delay supplies.

(b) Why this is hard

There is a real conflict between ACR anxiety and public duty. Bid-splitting is an easy shortcut, yet it undermines fairness for honest MSMEs and creates long-run harm: inflated costs, sanctions, reputational damage. The right course requires moral courage and clear communication.

(c) Most appropriate course and why

The lawful fast-track with safeguards is the best option. It is legal, protects rights and competition, is publicly defensible, and delivers supplies on time. It aligns duty to rules, justice and fair markets, public value (better prices and lower risk), and virtue (courage under pressure).

How to execute it well:
• Prepare a speaking note citing the GFR/CVC ban on splitting; attach stock position, demand forecast, and the case for urgency.
• Move the sanction file the same day, copying Finance and Procurement.
• Check GeM, rate contracts, or framework agreements; otherwise run an e-tender with pre-bid clarifications shared to all.
• If systems are at risk of halt, procure only the minimum bridge quantity within powers with recorded necessity, while the main tender runs.
• Maintain full audit trails, integrity pacts, independent evaluation, third-party quality checks, a bidder grievance window with service levels, and respectful, written communication with the boss.

How to prevent repeats:
Adopt monthly procurement plans and buffer stocks, standardise SKUs, use framework agreements, deploy red-flag analytics for single-bid or fragmented buys, rotate sensitive posts, run short ethics & procurement refreshers, and recognise rule-compliant initiative in ACRs.

Conclusion: Choose the clean fast-track. It gets the supplies in time, protects public money, keeps competition fair, and safeguards Rajesh’s career on merit and lawfulness—not on risky shortcuts.

Q. 11 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Program, MGNREGA was earlier known as National Rural Employment Scheme, NREGA. It is an Indian Social Welfare Program that aimed at fulfilling the ‘Right to Work’ provisions made in the Constitution. MGNREGA was launched in 2006 under Rural Employment Sector by the Ministry of Rural Development.

Main objective of the program is to give legal guarantee of wage employment to the adult members of rural households who are willing to do unskilled manual labour work subject to a maximum of 100 days per year for every household. Every rural household has the right to register under the scheme, job card is issued to the registered. Job Card holder can seek employment: State Government shall pay 25% of minimum wage for the first 30 days as compensatory daily unemployment allowance to the families and of wage for remaining period of the year. MGNREGA work was undertaken by various Gram Panchayats.
You have been appointed as an Administrator Incharge of the District You have been given the responsibility of monitoring MGNREGA work undertaken by various Gram Panchayats. You are also given the authority to give technical sanctions to all MGNREGA works.
In one of the Panchayats in your jurisdiction, you notice that your predecessor has mismanaged the Program in terms of:
(i) Money not disbursed to actual job-seekers.
(ii) Muster Rolls of the Labourers not properly maintained.
(iii) Mismatch between the work done and payments made.
(iv) Payments made to fictitious persons.
(v) Job Cards were given without looking into the need of person.
(vi) Mismanagement of funds and to the extent of siphoning of funds.
(vii) Approved works that never existed.
(a) What is your reaction to the above situation and how do you restore the proper functioning of MGNREGA Program in this regard?
(b) What actions would you initiate to solve the various issues listed above?
(c) How would you deal with the above situation?
(Answer in 250 words) 20

Context (facts in brief)

As District Administrator (monitoring + technical sanctions), you find a Panchayat with classic red flags: non-payment to genuine workers, shabby muster rolls, mismatch of work vs payments, fictitious beneficiaries, indiscriminate job cards, siphoning, and “paper works” that don’t exist.

Stakeholders

Rural workers/households; genuine job-card holders; Gram Sabha/GP staff/mates; Block & District teams; Social Audit Unit (SAU) & Ombudsman; PFMS/Treasury; taxpayers; CAG/audit; civil society.

Ethical–legal compass (keywords)

Rule of Law, Public Trust, Rights & Dignity of the poorest (Care ethics), Rawlsian fairness, Utilitarian welfare. Statute/SOPs: MGNREGA Act & Guidelines, Social Audit Rules, PFMS/DBT norms, RTI, due process (audi alteram partem).

(a) Immediate reaction & restoration (stabilise livelihoods, stop leakage)

Triage (Day 0–3):

• Freeze only suspect payments (not a blanket stop).
• Hold special camps to clear verified pending wages via PFMS/DBT, with offline fallback where biometric fails.
• Issue a speaking order: scope, timeline, grievance cell; protect whistle-blowers.

Rapid verification (Day 3–10):

• Door-to-door verification of workers, bank accounts, days worked; read out muster rolls in Gram Sabha.
• Re-measure works (e-MB), geo-tag/drone evidence; build a GIS asset register.
• Cancel fake job cards after notice/hearing; post a fresh shelf of works to ensure continuous employment (and unemployment allowance where due).

(b) Targeted actions on listed issues (with controls)

• Non-disbursal: PFMS reconciliation; camp payments; SLA for 7/15-day wage cycle.
• Bad muster rolls: NMMS app (with paper fallback); mate sign + supervisor countersign; photo time-stamps.
• Work–payment mismatch: Third-party measurement, revised e-MBs; recover excess; block bills till correction.
• Fictitious persons: Aadhaar-seeded DBT with exclusion safeguards; delete ghosts post-hearing; FIR in fraud.
• Job cards sans need: Re-survey + Gram Sabha validation; cancel/hold with appeal window.
• Siphoning: Vigilance inquiry, recovery orders, disciplinary action/blacklisting; freeze roles.
• Non-existent works: Mark invalid, 100% recovery, public disclosure, criminal action if warranted.

(c) How I would deal (approach, timeline, fairness)

Principles: Legality + least-harm + transparency—protect workers first; punish fraud with proportionality and due process.
Process discipline: Written orders; time-boxed plan (0–3 triage; 3–10 verification; 11–30 rectification; 30–90 institutionalisation).
Participation: Gram Sabha-led social audit, fortnightly progress briefs; grievance redress with SLAs.

Long-term / Policy-level fixes (eliminate recurrence)

Statutory autonomy & funding for SAUs; mandatory quarterly social audits with action-taken trackers.
Performance-linked grants to GPs tied to e-MB integrity, NMMS compliance, wage timeliness, and asset durability.
Strengthen Ombudsman (tenure security, suo motu powers) and District Vigilance & Monitoring Committee.
Tech + human oversight: PFMS red-flag analytics (single-bid, outlier payments), but offline/payment fallback to prevent exclusion.
Professional staffing: Cadre-based Programme Officers/Technical Assistants, training on measurement, e-MB, and ethics.
Transparent by default: Wall paintings (works, costs, wage lists), public dashboards, RTI-ready records.
Worker-centric norms: Enforce delay-compensation, worksite facilities, portable job demand during migration seasons.

Conclusion: By combining speaking-order verification, community oversight, technology with safeguards, and proportionate accountability, MGNREGA returns to purpose: real work, timely wages, durable assets—and a trustworthy safety net for the poorest.

Q. 12 Ashok is Divisional Commissioner of one of the border districts of the North East State. A few years back, Military has taken over the neighbouring country after overthrowing the elected civil government. Civil war situation is prevailing in the country especially in last two years. However, internal situation further deteriorated due to rebel groups taking over control of certain populated areas near own border. Due to intense fight between military and rebel groups, civilian casualties has increased manifold in recent past. In the meantime, in one night Ashok got information from the local police guarding the border check post that there are about 200-250 people mainly women and children trying to cross over to our side of the border. There are also about 10 soldiers with their weapons in military uniform part of this group who wants to cross over. Women and Children are also crying and begging for help. A few of them are injured and bleeding profusely need immediate medical care. Ashok tried to contact Home Secretary of the State but failed to do so due to poor connectivity mainly due to inclement weather.

1. a) What are the options available with Ashok to cope with the situation?
   (b) What are the ethical and legal dilemmas being faced by Ashok ?
   Which of the options, do you think would be more appropriate for Ashok to adopt and why?
   (d) In the present situation, what are the extra precautionary measures to be taken the guarding are measures to 20
   (Answer in 250 words)

Context (facts in brief)

Ashok, Divisional Commissioner in a North-East border district, is alerted at night: 200–250 civilians (mostly women/children, some badly injured) and ~10 armed uniformed soldiers from a conflict-torn neighbouring country are attempting to cross. Connectivity to the State HQ is down due to weather.

Stakeholders

Crossing civilians (life & dignity), armed foreign personnel, local residents, BSF/Assam Rifles/State Police, district health/relief teams, SDMA & MHA/MEA, neighbouring country authorities, media, future returnees.

Ethical–legal compass (keywords)

Article 21 (right to life & dignity); Rule of Law; public order & security; Foreigners/Passport Acts, Arms Act, CrPC (preventive custody & public safety), NDMA/SDMA relief powers; humanitarian norms (protect civilians, separate combatants), non-refoulement as a fairness principle; tests of necessity–proportionality–least harm. Lenses: Kant/duty, Rights/Care ethics, Rawlsian fairness, Utilitarian welfare.

(a) Options available (with quick evaluation)

• A. Push back all entrants.
  Fast, but risks immediate loss of life; may breach humanitarian duty and escalate firing. Legality/rights weak.
• B. Admit everyone as they are (including armed soldiers).
  Protects civilians but imports combatants & weapons; grave security lapse. Fails public order.
• C. Admit civilians through a humanitarian corridor, and disarm–detain soldiers separately under law.
  Balances life protection with security control; publicly defensible and operationally feasible. Best.
• D. Wait for superior orders.
  With comms down, delay = harm; abdication of responsibility. Not prudent.

(b) Ethical & legal dilemmas

Life vs security: Urgent medical aid vs preventing infiltration/weapon spillover.
Sovereignty vs humanity: No codified refugee law vs Article 21 and customary humanitarian fairness.
Due process vs urgency: Identity & documentation vs time-critical care.
Foreign relations: Protecting civilians without provoking the neighbour.
Arms control & evidence: Safe seizure and documented chain-of-custody.

(c) Most appropriate option & why

Choose Option C (humanitarian + security split). Saves lives (Rights/Care; proportionality), protects security (duty to public order), and can be defended in law and ethics.

How: Establish a secure receiving point inside Indian territory; medical triage first (women/children, severe bleeding) and transfer to district hospital; disarm at the border, seal weapons with panchnama/chain-of-custody; segregate & detain soldiers under Foreigners/CrPC provisions in a guarded facility; register civilians (photo, minimal biodata), screen for trafficking/health, and house them in a temporary relief camp (food, WASH, lighting, women/child-friendly spaces).
Report: Issue a speaking situation order, inform MHA/MEA/State Home at the first connectivity window; keep a factual media brief to prevent rumours.

(d) Extra precautionary measures for guarding agencies

Layered perimeter: Inner ring for civilians (weapons-free), outer ring for security; women police & medical staff for gender-sensitive handling.
Evidence discipline: Body-cams where feasible; time-stamped seizure memos; logbooks.
De-escalation: Night illumination, but noise/light discipline toward the border; use hotline/flag-meet if available.
Health protection: Bleeding control, infection control, quick vaccinations if indicated; child protection & anti-trafficking desk.
Intel screening: Basic watch-list checks; separate, later interviews with interpreters.

Long-term measures (policy & institutional)

Border Influx SOP: State/MHA-notified SOP codifying humanitarian corridor + disarm–detain protocol; clear roles for Civil, Police, CAPFs, Health, WCD, SDMA.
Reception infrastructure: Pre-identified transit camps, stockpiles (shelter kits, medicines), multilingual interpreters, psychosocial support teams.
Civil–CAPF coordination cell: 24×7 node for hotline/flag meetings, joint drills, and intel-sharing; periodic HADR exercises.
Data & dignity: Minimal-data registration with privacy safeguards; child-safeguarding SOPs; legal-aid desks.
Arms & evidence SOP: Standard chain-of-custody kits, armouries, and joint documentation formats.
External coordination: MEA-led framework for temporary protection & repatriation, liaison with UNHCR/ICRC, and bilateral CBMs to reduce miscalculation.

Conclusion: A humanitarian corridor for civilians, paired with strict disarmament and lawful detention of combatants, best satisfies Article 21, public order, and proportionality. It protects life now, preserves security tonight, and—through codified SOPs and preparedness—builds a repeatable, dignified response for the future.