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: (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

(a) Mr. Pradeep faces a situation of internal dissonance. He is a man of high values and morals. Pradeep upholds the value of probity, honesty, openness.

However in this case he is in a situation where he himself has no locus standi as he is not involved in the matter but also cannot chose to ignore such unethical practices.

Thus, he faces internal dissonance as he is under a compulsion to exhibit actions which are not in

line with his principles and values.

(b) However, in order to resolve this dissonance, Pradeep takes the option of doing nothing and remain outside the issue.

The action can be justified by some as:

• it saves Pradeep from dissonance as well as the wrath of seniors
• easier option for Pradeep without much effort

However, this is not an ideal course of action because:

• it will further perpetuate corruption in his department
• the day something of this sort happens in a matter under Pradeep's jurisdiction

seniors may take Pradeep for granted - even worse is the possibility of being blamed of promoting corruption if any outsider gets the whiff of the matter.

(c) If I had been in Pradeep's place, I would have taken up the matter to the media and the judiciary albeit under an undisclosed identity.

MERITS →

• will weed out corruption in the department
• will serve as deterrent for others
• will help me maintain my identity a secret so that I can't be harassed by the wrongdoers

DEMERITS →

• sensationalisation by media
• long judicial process
• dangers of my identity