Non-Factual Case Studies in Administrative Ethics

Key Points at a Glance

1. 1

   Non-factual case studies are hypothetical but realistic ethical dilemma scenarios designed to test a candidate's ability to identify stakeholders, analyse competing values, apply ethical frameworks, and propose principled administrative action — not recall factual knowledge.

2. 2

   The four-step framework for answering case studies: (1) Identify the ethical dilemma and stakeholders; (2) List the values/principles in conflict; (3) Evaluate alternative courses of action using ethical frameworks; (4) Choose the best action with justification and implementation plan.

3. 3

   Key ethical frameworks for case study analysis: (a) Consequentialism/Utilitarianism — which action produces the greatest good for the greatest number? (b) Deontology — which action fulfils duty/rights regardless of consequences? (c) Virtue ethics — what would a person of good character do? (d) Rawlsian fairness — what protects the worst-off?

4. 4

   Stakeholder mapping is a critical first step: identify all individuals and groups affected by the decision — immediate, indirect, and future — including vulnerable populations who may not have voice in the process.

5. 5

   Competing values in administrative case studies typically include: legality vs. justice, efficiency vs. equity, loyalty vs. integrity, individual rights vs. collective welfare, immediate relief vs. long-term rehabilitation, procedure vs. conscience.

6. 6

   The role of proportionality: Not every rule violation demands the harshest response — an ethical administrator weighs the severity of the violation, the vulnerability of those involved, and the proportionality of the response.

7. 7

   Whistleblowing as ethical action: When internal channels fail, a public servant may have an ethical obligation to expose wrongdoing externally — to the Lokayukta, Lokpal, CAG, media, or court. Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 provides legal protection.

8. 8

   "Conflict of interest" arises when personal interests (financial, familial, political) of an officer could influence an official decision — must be disclosed and recused from. The AIS Conduct Rules 1968 prohibit officers from making decisions in matters where they have a personal interest.

9. 9

   The "do nothing" option is never ethical: Administrative inaction in a crisis (e.g., not ordering relief when famine signs are visible) is itself a decision with moral consequences — the sin of omission can be as grave as commission.

10. 10

    Moral courage vs. moral cowardice: Moral courage is the willingness to do the right thing despite risk — to object on file, to refuse an unjust order, to side with the powerless against the powerful. Moral cowardice is yielding to pressure or convenience against one's ethical judgment.

11. 11

    Structured Answer Formula for 10-mark case study:

12. 12

    The ethical minimum: Whatever option is chosen, it must not violate constitutional rights, must be explainable to a reasonable person applying good conscience, and must not serve the officer's personal interest.