Aspirant Academy

Ethics

Predicted Questions with Model Answers

Non-Factual Case Studies in Administrative Ethics

Paper II · Unit 1 Section 8 of 10 0 PYQs 36 min
Topic Preview Subject Inventory

Public Section Preview

Predicted Questions with Model Answers

Q1 (5 marks — 50 words): What is a "conflict of interest"? How should a public servant handle it?

Model Answer:

Conflict of interest arises when a public servant's personal interest — financial, familial, or political — could improperly influence an official decision. AIS Conduct Rules 1968 prohibit such decisions. Handling: (1) disclose the conflict to the superior immediately; (2) recuse oneself from the decision; (3) ensure it is documented on file. Silence about a conflict of interest is itself a conduct violation — transparency is the ethical minimum.

Q2 (5 marks — 50 words): What is "moral courage" in public administration? Give one example.

Model Answer:

Moral courage is the willingness to do the right thing despite personal risk — objecting to an unjust order on file, refusing to endorse fraudulent bills, whistleblowing on a superior's corruption. Example: An SDM who refuses to issue premature land acquisition notices that violate tribal FRA rights — despite pressure from the CM's office — demonstrates moral courage, grounded in constitutional duty and value rationality. Moral courage is the operational expression of integrity.

Q3 (10 marks — 150 words): You are a newly posted BDO. While reviewing attendance muster rolls for MNREGA, you discover that the Panchayat Secretary has created 200 ghost beneficiaries. Your investigation reveals the Sarpanch is also involved. Your predecessor (now transferred) probably knew but said nothing. Identify the stakeholders, ethical dilemma, and recommend a course of action.

Model Answer:

Stakeholders: (1) 200 MNREGA workers who did not receive wages — primary victims, very vulnerable; (2) Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch — wrongdoers; (3) previous BDO — possibly complicit through inaction; (4) the rural community — long-term loss of trust in administration; (5) You — oath-bound officer with legal duty to act.

Ethical Dilemma: The path of least resistance is inaction — document the finding and wait. But inaction perpetuates ongoing theft from the rural poor. The dilemma: career caution (the political ecosystem protects the Sarpanch) vs. constitutional duty and integrity.

Values in Conflict: Institutional loyalty vs. integrity; career self-preservation vs. duty to the poor; "system norm" vs. legal obligation.

Recommended Action:

  1. Secure evidence (copy muster rolls, bank records) before alerting anyone.
  2. Formally write to the Collector with a fact-based note on the fraud — requesting Collector to order a detailed social audit and recovery proceedings.
  3. File a complaint with the Social Audit Unit of the state and MNREGA Ombudsman.
  4. Ensure ongoing MNREGA work in that Gram Panchayat is supervised directly by block staff until investigation is complete.
  5. Facilitate FIR if investigation confirms criminal conspiracy under Prevention of Corruption Act.

Ethical principle: Value rationality over instrumental rationality — Rs X saved for the poor is worth the career risk of speaking up.

Q4 (5 marks — 50 words): What are the key steps in the four-step ethical case study framework?

Model Answer:

The four-step framework for ethical case study analysis: Step 1 — Identify the dilemma: state which values are in tension. Step 2 — Map stakeholders: list all affected parties, especially the most vulnerable. Step 3 — Evaluate options: apply at least two ethical frameworks (consequentialist, deontological, virtue-based, Rawlsian) to 2–3 courses of action. Step 4 — Recommend and justify: state the best option with reasoning, implementation steps, and safeguards against misuse.

Q5 (5 marks — 50 words): What is "moral cowardice" in administration? How does it differ from moral courage?

Model Answer:

Moral cowardice in administration is yielding to pressure, convenience, or self-interest against one's ethical judgment — signing a fraudulent bill to avoid a superior's anger, refusing to document an unjust order to protect career prospects, or staying silent about corruption because "everyone does it." Moral courage is the opposite: taking principled action despite personal risk. Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" captures the administrative cost of moral cowardice — ordinary officials enable great injustice through small surrenders of conscience.

Q6 (10 marks — 150 words): A newly posted District Collector finds that her predecessor has approved a large PMAY housing scheme payment for 500 houses in a village — but satellite imagery and field inspection show only 150 houses were built. The contractor has political connections with the state's ruling party. The Collector's own superiors are aware but have not acted. Identify the ethical dilemma, stakeholders, and recommend a step-by-step action plan.

Model Answer:

The ethical dilemma is stark: the Collector has evidence of a Rs-crore fraud against the rural poor, but the institutional environment (superior awareness + political nexus) creates immense pressure for inaction. The dilemma pits integrity and constitutional duty against career self-preservation and institutional loyalty.

Stakeholders: (1) 350 PMAY-excluded families who built their own houses without assistance — primary victims; (2) 150 genuine beneficiaries — need scheme protection; (3) Contractor — perpetrator; (4) Previous Collector and complicit superiors — institutionally protected; (5) State ruling party — political exposure; (6) The Collector — oath-bound but career-vulnerable.

Values in conflict: Integrity vs. loyalty; rule of law vs. institutional protection; immediate silence vs. long-term accountability.

Step-by-step action plan:

  1. Evidence securing (Day 1): Print and personally retain copies of the satellite imagery, field inspection report, payment sanction orders, and contractor details — before alerting anyone.

  2. Internal escalation (Day 3): Write a formal, fact-based note to the Divisional Commissioner (skipping the implicated superior), documenting the discrepancy between payment approvals and constructed houses. Request either an independent inquiry or direction on how to proceed.

  3. If no response in 15 days: File a complaint with the State Lokayukta and simultaneously with the MoHUA (Ministry of Housing, as PMAY is a central scheme) — both have jurisdiction.

  4. Protect beneficiaries: Ensure the 150 genuinely completed houses are not disturbed; flag the 350 pending to the state PMAY director for verification and fresh sanction.

  5. Communicate with central authorities: PMAY is a central government scheme; the CAG audits it. File an alert with the state CAG audit team.

  6. Document all pressure: If superiors or political actors pressure you to drop the matter, document it on file — this creates an accountability record and Whistleblower Act protection.

Ethical principle: The 350 families who never received their houses are the Collector's primary moral obligation. The fear of career damage is a real consideration — but a public servant who suppresses evidence of fraud on the rural poor for career protection has abandoned the foundational purpose of her position.