- Assess gravity & scale of incident
- Ensure civilian & team safety
- Secure area & crowd control
- Evidence & intelligence gathering
- Arrest with due process
- FIR under appropriate law
- Time-bound impartial investigation
- Victim rehabilitation
- Community reconciliation & AAR
- IMD/NDMA early warning
- Evacuation planning
- Resource mobilisation
- Life-saving operations
- Inter-agency coordination
- Rumour & crowd control
- Damage assessment
- Relief & rehabilitation
- After-Action Report
- Merit-based decisions
- Conflict of interest disclosure
- Professional consultation
- Transparent tendering
- Strict financial discipline
- Prevent leakage & duplication
- Internal + External + Social audit
- Grievance redressal
- Whistle-blower protection
- C – Constitutional
- O – Objective
- M – Moral
- P – Proportionate
- A – Accountable
- S – Sustainable
- S – Society First
[Case Study 1] Vijay – Deputy Commissioner in Disaster Situation
(a) Options available to Vijay
- Continue to lead rescue and relief operations, postponing travel, while requesting relatives/community members to perform immediate last rites.
- Hand over charge to the Additional Deputy Commissioner / senior officer, issue written directions and proceed on short emergency leave for last rites.
- Remain during the peak crisis phase, stabilise response systems, then take very brief leave with continuous remote supervision.
(b) Ethical dilemmas
- Conflict between public duty and filial duty – saving many lives versus last rites of his mother.
- Emotional distress versus professional objectivity.
- Public trust and leadership – symbolism of the DC staying or leaving in crisis.
- Personal morality, cultural obligations and constitutional responsibility.
(c) Critical evaluation of options
Option 1 upholds the principle of public interest, maximises welfare and maintains continuity of command. However, it may cause deep personal grief and social criticism for not performing last rites, affecting his emotional well-being.
Option 2 honours filial duty and cultural expectations, but in a deteriorating disaster situation, sudden absence of the DC can weaken coordination, slow decisions and endanger more lives. It may appear as dereliction of duty and violate proportionality.
Option 3 balances both spheres: he fulfils his primary obligation to affected citizens during the most critical period, creates clear delegation, written SOPs and inter-agency coordination mechanisms, and then briefly visits home once operations stabilise.
(d) Most appropriate option
Option 3 is most ethical. It reflects constitutional morality, utilitarianism, professionalism and compassion. Vijay should transparently communicate his decision, strengthen institutional mechanisms, stay during the life-saving golden phase, and then, after stabilisation, take short leave to perform rites and return promptly. This preserves both human sensitivity and the primacy of public duty.
[Case Study 2] Deforestation vs Housing for the Homeless
The district administration proposes clearing forest land in an ecologically sensitive zone to build housing for the homeless in line with Directive Principles of State Policy. The forest hosts rich biodiversity, regulates climate, supports tribal livelihoods and prevents soil erosion. The administration argues that housing fulfills fundamental human rights, reduces human–wildlife conflict and improves law & order.
(a) Can deforestation be ethically justified for social welfare?
(b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges?
(c) What alternatives or policy interventions can balance environment and human dignity?
(a) Ethical justification of deforestation
Routine deforestation cannot be ethically justified for welfare delivery. While housing is part of the right to live with dignity, environmental protection is also a constitutional duty. Forests ensure ecological balance, tribal survival and inter-generational equity. Destruction for convenience violates sustainable development and ecological trusteeship. Only in rare, unavoidable circumstances with strict safeguards may limited diversion be considered as a last resort.
(b) Key challenges
- Conflict between human development and environmental conservation.
- Displacement of tribal and forest-dependent populations.
- Long-term ecological damage vs short-term welfare gains.
- Political and administrative pressures.
- Ethical tension between anthropocentric and eco-centric values.
(c) Alternatives & policy interventions
- Use of degraded, non-forest or government wasteland.
- Vertical and in-situ affordable housing.
- Strict Environmental Impact Assessment and public consent.
- Green housing with compensatory afforestation.
- Community forest management to reduce wildlife conflict.
Conclusion
Ethical governance lies in protecting both nature and human dignity. Development must be sustainable, inclusive and inter-generationally just.
[Case Study 3] Subhash – PWD Secretary under Pressure
Subhash is Secretary, PWD, known for integrity and competence. He handles policy formulation and execution of infrastructure projects. His Minister is keen on launching an ambitious road construction project. Subhash’s son, engaged in real estate business, wants inside information on the exact project location to invest early and gain windfall profits. He pressures his father continuously.
The Minister also shows undue interest in the project as his nephew owns a big infrastructure company. The Minister has indirectly asked Subhash to take care of his nephew’s business interests and to act fast for political gains.
(a) Discuss the ethical issues involved.
(b) Critically examine the options before Subhash.
(c) Which option is most appropriate and why?
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Conflict of interest involving son and Minister’s nephew.
- Misuse of confidential government information.
- Political pressure and nepotism.
- Violation of probity, integrity and public trust.
- Risk of corruption and crony capitalism.
(b) Options available to Subhash
Option 1: Share project details with his son and favour the Minister’s nephew. This would lead to illegal gratification, insider trading and gross ethical violation. It would destroy public trust and invite criminal liability.
Option 2: Remain silent with his son but indirectly facilitate the Minister’s nephew. This partially avoids familial conflict but still amounts to abuse of office and political complicity.
Option 3: Refuse to share any confidential information, formally disclose conflict of interest, ensure transparent tendering, follow due procurement rules and document all interactions. This may invite political displeasure but upholds rule of law.
Option 4: Seek written instructions from the Minister or escalate the matter to the Chief Secretary / Vigilance Commission. This protects institutional integrity but may strain his career.
(c) Most appropriate option
Option 3 combined with Option 4 is the most appropriate. Subhash must uphold integrity, deny any insider information to his son, ensure complete transparency in procurement and formally record political pressure. This aligns with constitutional values, prevents corruption, protects public resources and preserves long-term institutional credibility. Personal or political costs are secondary to public interest and probity in governance.