Mr. Pradeep is a senior civil servant in the central government and is involved in the budgeting department. In the course of performing his duties, he comes to know about diversion of funds earmarked for SC/ST sub-plan for other purposes. While he is not directly responsible for this aspect of the budget, he raised his concerns to the department concerned. He also learns that the minister responsible as well as senior most civil servants are aware of the practice and have given tacit approval for it. Soon thereafter, Pradeep was summoned to talk on the issue and was told that since the matter is not within his jurisdiction, he should 'keep his nose out of it'. After much soul searching, Pradeep decided to obey his supervisors by leaving the matter alone. Based on the information given, answer the following questions: 20 (a) Elaborate on the internal dissonance that Pradeep faces in the given situation. (b) On what basis can the decision of Pradeep be justified? (c) Had you been in Pradeep's place, what would have been the course of action chosen by you? Recognise the merits and demerits, if any.

(1) Challenges of corruption - utilisation of public funds (2) Responsibility as a citizen, public servant (3) Values of courage, justice, compassion. (4) Professionalism to reform the system. (5) Conscience as a guide of ethics (6) Truth as the highest good - and speaking truth to power. Hence these implore him to disclose the issue However: (1) Values of confidentiality (2) Protecting self from reprisal (3) Face of government in society and its respect/dignity would get tarnished (4) No jurisdiction reduces his remit of action These dissuade him from acting.

The basis on which his decision is justified is: (1) Respect for government would be tarnished in society if he whistle blows. This would further create mistrust and difficulty for honest servants. (2) As a junior officer he would face powerful reprisal of seniors; could create unfriendly work environment for him. (3) Could be used by politicians for sensationalisation. (4) He would be questioned on how he came to know; would question his own focus as he is concerned with other departments not his job. (5) Eventually people should be empowered to demand accountability - internal disclosures are band aid at best.

However he is not justified to back out.

My course of action: (1) Report the matter to vigilance departments as well as police for personal security. (2) As the investigation proceeds - cooperate fully about how, why I know. (3) Cooperate with civil society to educate the SCs/STs about how they should demand social responsibility from government. (4) If the internal vigilance investigation is manipulated - I would be forced to whistle blow as last choice.

Merits: (1) Values of justice, fortitude, honesty, integrity upheld (2) Public interest protected (3) Professional values to reform the system. (4) Public dignity of government protected. (5) Public is empowered to deal with government - demand accountability. (6) Corrupt are punished - correct work precedent set.

Demerits: (1) Reprisal may follow - In struggling with misfortune lies true proof of virtue (2) Pressure would deepen on me - "To be outspoken is easy if we do not wait to speak the whole truth" - Gandhi; "Truth is truth, even if you are in a minority of one" - Gandhi (3) This could cause loss of face of exposed - I tried my best to avoid it. But, here public interest is paramount.