Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case of strike by the drivers’ union of City Transport Department over the issue of compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter. He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the bus and a car driven by a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver’s condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come at the spot of accident and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There was exchange of blows between them. The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver’s (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved, depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers’ union took up this case and when found no favourable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union’s demand was two-fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to one family member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains.

How a topper answered the closest question

Toppers wrote this one in a test series: “Neha, an IAS officer, is serving as the District Magistrate (DM) of a bustling metropolitan district. Among her wide-ranging responsibilities, she also oversees the functioning of the Municipal Sanitation Department, which employs hundreds of sanitation workers, drivers, and daily wage laborers responsible for keeping the city clean and waste-free. One morning, a disturbing case landed on Neha's desk. Rajiv, a municipal garbage truck driver, died following a violent street altercation while on duty. On that day, Rajiv was driving his garbage collection truck through a crowded market street. He got into a heated argument with a street vendor who had encroached upon the road, obstructing the truck's passage. Eyewitness reports and CCTV footage revealed that Rajiv, known for his short temper, started the verbal abuse, which escalated into a physical fight. Despite bystanders trying to intervene, the scuffle turned bloody. Both Rajiv and the vendor were hospitalized with serious injuries. Rajiv succumbed to a head injury later that night, while the vendor survived. A police investigation and the Municipal Sanitation Department's inquiry confirmed that Rajiv's death resulted from his own misconduct and violent behavior while on duty. A post-mortem report further revealed that Rajiv had consumed alcohol while on duty and was under the influence at the time of the altercation, which is a clear violation of service rules that strictly prohibit drinking during work hours, especially for drivers operating municipal vehicles. According to the department's standing rules, extra ex-gratia compensation and family employment are given only in cases of death caused by workplace accidents or occupational hazards, not deaths resulting from personal fights, gross misconduct, or negligence such as working under the influence of alcohol. However, Rajiv's death left behind a dependent family: his elderly parents, his wife, and two children, one in college, the other in high school. His wife and children, shattered by his sudden death, argue that Rajiv died during duty hours and the family must not be punished for his mistake. The Sanitation Workers' Union has taken up the issue aggressively, demanding the same full ex-gratia compensation that is given to other drivers who die on duty, plus a permanent government job for Rajiv's elder son. When the department refused, citing the clear rule violation, the union declared an indefinite strike, bringing garbage collection to a standstill. The strike has now entered its tenth day, and the city's streets are overflowing with waste, creating serious health and public order concerns. Neha is under pressure to resolve the crisis while balancing legal norms, humanitarian concerns, and public interest. (a) Evaluate each option with its merits and demerits available to Neha. (b) If you were in Neha's position, what decision would you take? Justify your decision with appropriate ethical reasoning and principles. (c) What steps can Neha take to prevent similar incidents and ethical conflicts in the future in the Municipal Sanitation Department?”

Toppers’ answers to other close questions

• Anand Singh is a government bus conductor working with the Nav Pradesh Transport Corporation. Anand has completed 35 years of service and is due for retirement next year. Anand is happy because he is hopeful of getting his daughter, Madhvi, married from the money he will receive as his retirement benefits. However, Anand's wife pesters him to earn more money in one way or the other. Anand likes his job, and all the passengers in his route vouch for his good nature and helpful behaviour. One day, Suresh, Anand's boss, called Anand in his cabin. He told Anand that a complaint has been filed against him by a person for illegally taking the ticket money from him without issuing the receipt for the ticket. Suresh explained to Anand that this act amounted to misappropriation of government money. Suresh always saw Anand as a decent individual and he asked him as to why he indulged in such an act? Anand, visibly disturbed, told Suresh that as the conductor of a government bus he receives a meagre salary, grossly insufficient to meet the needs of his family. He told him that his younger daughter, Sarita, suffers from chronic kidney ailment, and requires dialysis twice a week. A huge chunk of his paltry salary goes towards the cost of Sarita's treatment. Moreover, as a single bread-winner of the family, he has to cater to the needs of his elderly parents. Anand further tells Suresh that since last one year a substantial portion of his income goes towards repaying the loan that he took for his elder daughter's college education. Anand laments that even after working for 35 years long years, he is unable to provide for his family beyond the bare basic necessities. He tells Suresh that he is aware of many incidents of large-scale corruption in the road transport department that go virtually unnoticed. Further, Anand justifies his act of taking money by highlighting that almost every colleague of his indulges in such practices, and in comparison, to them, what he took, just fifty rupees, is ignorable and paltry. Further, he brought to light the fact that at times they, the conductors, were expected to give their immediate superiors a bribe in the name of convenience fees for various official tasks. While listening to Anand, Suresh feels compassion for him. He decides to verify the veracity of Anand's claim with regard to the dire straits of his financial conditions. On enquiry, all the workers in the office attested to the fact that Anand is going through a very bad phase and that he frequently resorts to short term loans in order to meet his financial requirements. Moreover, the office employees requested Suresh to take a lenient view of Anand's case. They were of the view that if a strong action is taken over such a trivial incident, then it would be highly unjust and unfair towards Anand. On reaching his home, Suresh shared the whole occurrence and Anand's story with his wife. To his surprise, his wife too agreed with the employees of the office. She told him that such small incidents are a routine matter. Also, with rising inflation and increasing obligations, this is the only way for people like Anand to make their ends meet. She asks Suresh to not waste his time and energy over such a small matter. Suresh knows Anand as a hard-working individual who has many mouths to feed at home. Suresh shares genuine sympathy with him, however, he also understands that embezzlement of government money, irrespective of amount and circumstances, is wrong. Now he is in a state of dilemma over his course of action. a) Why are the incidents of petty corruption trivialized? According to you, is it justifiable to ignore small incidents of corruption? b) What are various ethical dilemmas in the above case study?1 answer
• Rashmi, a social work postgraduate who escaped an early marriage, started an NGO for rescuing and rehabilitating child marriage victims. In the last five years, she saved a lot of young girls from becoming victims of child marriage. Her modus Operandi was simple. She had developed a network of informants in villages who relayed information to her, and after verifying, Rashmi with help from local law enforcement personnel, prevented the marriage from happening. Rashmi did commendable work, but she made some enemies in the process. The local leaders resented her popularity with women and young girls in particular. To expand her activities, Rashmi contacted the management of the only industrial unit in the district. She successfully persuaded the company to contribute to her activities and the NGO. The company even gave her access to their facilities to conduct workshops for workers to raise awareness about the issue of child marriage. As she started her workshops and campaign on the company premises, the initial response was lukewarm and, at times, complete indifference. But she persevered. After a couple of months, one day, the company union members stopped her from entering the company and even threatened her with violence. Rashmi spoke with the management, who supported her and ensured her safety. The management issued a circular supporting Rashmi and her NGO. To management's surprise, after a week of the circular, the Union called for a flash strike and threatened to continue the work stoppage if the NGO activities continued. The workers believed that Rashmi's campaign was corrupting the women's minds and disrespecting their traditions. The company's management seeing the aggressive reaction sought to assuage the workers by stopping the NGO activities. Rashmi tried to persuade the management by highlighting their social responsibility to the community. But the management was curt in replying that every social problem is not their moral responsibility. Rashmi was disappointed with the management's decision and wondered how best to involve the company in her campaigns. (a) What are the issues involved in the above case? (b) What do you think Rashmi should do? Would it be a good idea for Rashmi to involve local administration? Suggest an implementable course of action. (c) Do you think companies should also accept responsibility for the social problems of the region where they operate? Why/why not? (d) What could be the reasons for such an aggressive reaction from the workers union? How do you think Rashmi should handle the workers union?1 answer
• Anand Singh is a government bus conductor working with the Nav Pradesh Transport Corporation. Anand has completed 35 years of service and is due for retirement next year. Anand is happy because he is hopeful of getting his daughter, Madhvi, married from the money he will receive as his retirement benefits. However, Anand's wife pesters him to earn more money in one way or the other. Anand likes his job, and all the passengers in his route vouch for his good nature and helpful behaviour. One day, Suresh, Anand's boss, called Anand in his cabin. He told Anand that a complaint has been filed against him by a person for illegally taking the ticket money from him without issuing the receipt for the ticket. Suresh explained to Anand that this act amounted to misappropriation of government money. Suresh always saw Anand as a decent individual and he asked him as to why he indulged in such an act? Anand, visibly disturbed, told Suresh that as the conductor of a government bus he receives a meagre salary, grossly insufficient to meet the needs of his family. He told him that that his younger daughter, Sarita, suffers from chronic kidney ailment, and requires dialysis twice a week. A huge chunk of his paltry salary goes towards the cost of Sarita's treatment. Moreover, as a single bread-winner of the family, he has to cater to the needs of his elderly parents. Anand further tells Suresh that since last one year a substantial portion of his income goes towards repaying the loan that he took for his elder daughter's college education. Anand laments that even after working for 35 long years, he is unable to provide for his family beyond the bare basic necessities. He tells Suresh that he is aware of many incidents of large-scale corruption in the road transport department that go virtually unnoticed. Further, Anand justifies his act of taking money by highlighting that almost every colleague of his indulges in such practices, and in comparison, to them, what he took, just fifty rupees, is ignorable and paltry. Further, he brought to light the fact that at times they, the conductors, were expected to give their immediate superiors a bribe in the name of convenience fees for various official tasks. While listening to Anand, Suresh feels compassion for him. He decides to verify the veracity of Anand's claim with regard to the dire straits of his financial conditions. On enquiry, all the workers in the office attested to the fact that Anand is going through a very bad phase and that he frequently resorts to short term loans in order to meet his financial requirements. Moreover, the office employees requested Suresh to take a lenient view of Anand's case. They were of the view that if a strong action is taken over such a trivial incident, then it would be highly unjust and unfair towards Anand. On reaching his home, Suresh shared the whole occurrence and Anand's story with his wife. To his surprise, his wife too agreed with the employees of the office. They told him that such small incidents are a routine matter. Also, with rising inflation and increasing obligations, this is the only way for people like Anand to make their ends meet. She asks Suresh to not waste his time and energy over such a small matter. Suresh knows Anand as a hard-working individual who has many mouths to feed at home. Suresh shares genuine sympathy with him, however, he also understands that embezzlement of government money, irrespective of amount and circumstances, is wrong. Now he is in a state of dilemma over his course of action. a) Why are the incidents of petty corruption trivialized? According to you, is it justifiable to ignore small incidents of corruption? b) What are various ethical dilemmas in the above case study?1 answer