Imagine that you have been recently appointed as the head of the accounts department in a municipal corporation. Soon after you assumed your duties, you discovered that a clerk in your department was falsifying the payroll account by continuing to carry the names of some employees who have already been terminated. When the clerk picked up the payroll, he would pull out those cheques, endorse and cash them and keep the money. You have no difficulty in recognizing that this clerk is not only involved in unethical conduct but is also clearly violating the law. In this situation, the following two options are available to you. Which amongst these two would you choose as your response? Give logical arguments in support of your answer. (15 Marks) (1) Your responsibility for the image of the corporation may suggest firing the clerk quietly, involving as few other people as possible. (2) Your responsibility for maintaining the public trust may demand you to consider formal charges and prosecution.

1st Approach It is not difficult to recognize that this clerk is not only involved in unethical conduct but is… Continue reading Imagine that you have been recently appointed as the head of the accounts department in a municipal corporation. Soon after you assumed your duties, you discovered that a clerk in your department was falsifying the payroll account by continuing to carry the names of some employees who have already been terminated. When the clerk picked up the payroll, he would pull out those cheques, endorse and cash them and keep the money. You have no difficulty in recognizing that this clerk is not only involved in unethical conduct but is also clearly violating the law. In this situation, the following two options are available to you. Which amongst these two would you choose as your response? Give logical arguments in support of your answer. (15 Marks) (1) Your responsibility for the image of the corporation may suggest firing the clerk quietly, involving as few other people as possible. (2) Your responsibility for maintaining the public trust may demand you to consider formal charges and prosecution.

Mr. X worked in the human resources department that was interviewing applicants for a top job in a widget company. After reading many applications, one stood out way ahead of the others. Then he realized that he knew the applicant, Mr. Y. They had hung out together when they were teenagers. Mr. Y had been a wild kid and once was arrested for shoplifting and the possession of drugs. Mr. Y had completed mandatory counseling and, as far as Mr. X knew, Mr. Y had straightened out his life and had done well during the last twenty years. Mr. Y hadn’t indicated in his application that he had once been arrested and Mr. X feared that the company would never hire someone with a police record, no matter how minor or how long ago the offence was. Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?

Answer:   1st Approach In this case, principle of integrity applies. In line with the global professional and ethical standards… Continue reading Mr. X worked in the human resources department that was interviewing applicants for a top job in a widget company. After reading many applications, one stood out way ahead of the others. Then he realized that he knew the applicant, Mr. Y. They had hung out together when they were teenagers. Mr. Y had been a wild kid and once was arrested for shoplifting and the possession of drugs. Mr. Y had completed mandatory counseling and, as far as Mr. X knew, Mr. Y had straightened out his life and had done well during the last twenty years. Mr. Y hadn’t indicated in his application that he had once been arrested and Mr. X feared that the company would never hire someone with a police record, no matter how minor or how long ago the offence was. Do you favor Mr. X revealing the information?

As the Housing society in Faircity, an older community in Honestopolis, is in a dilapidated state, the Municipal Corporation of Honestopolis (MCH) has declared the area appropriate for redevelopment appointing you as project director. You have a team of two specialists, Prateek and Tarun, and the mandate is to determine which of the houses should be rehabilitated and which must be demolished. Prateek and Tarun, report to you about Mrs. Sudha, who has lived in project area 1 for thirty years. Mrs. Sudha is now eighty-five years old, her husband is deceased and the little money her husband left her with has been so battered by inflation that it barely meets her basic living expenses. She has been neglecting the repairs on her home, which is now in a pretty bad shape. They sum up the condition of the house by admitting that according to the standards they have been applying elsewhere in the first project area, Mrs. Sudha’s home should be demolished and she be relocated somewhere else. However, Prateek cannot bring himself to recommend the destruction of the old woman’s home. He tells you that he knows what the law requires and what the MCH project guidelines specify, but it seems wrong. He argues that “Elderly people, when relocated often lapse into senility and sometimes death. We should not treat decent people who have worked hard all their lives as though they were disposable trash just because they do not fit in certain guidelines. ” However, Tarun does not agree. He feels as strongly as Prateek but not in the same way. “It is too bad about Mrs. Sudha, and all the Mrs. Sudhas who get caught in her predicament, but there is nothing we can do about it,” says Tarun. He tells you that MCH’s job is to rehabilitate the houses when it can and demolish when it cannot, and there are laws and rules and standards that must govern those decisions. He insists that we cannot go around making exceptions; we have to be fair with everyone and that means treating everyone equally. There must be no special favours, or everyone will demand an exception, and nothing will get done The only way is to follow the rules. What would be your objective responsibility in this case? Also, clarify what is your subjective responsibility? What would be your future course of action? Is there any other essential information that you would need in order to arrive at a suitable decision? If yes, what could be this information?

Answer: 1st Approach First, consider the facts concerning your objective responsibility: The laws and MCH project guidelines related to demolition… Continue reading As the Housing society in Faircity, an older community in Honestopolis, is in a dilapidated state, the Municipal Corporation of Honestopolis (MCH) has declared the area appropriate for redevelopment appointing you as project director. You have a team of two specialists, Prateek and Tarun, and the mandate is to determine which of the houses should be rehabilitated and which must be demolished. Prateek and Tarun, report to you about Mrs. Sudha, who has lived in project area 1 for thirty years. Mrs. Sudha is now eighty-five years old, her husband is deceased and the little money her husband left her with has been so battered by inflation that it barely meets her basic living expenses. She has been neglecting the repairs on her home, which is now in a pretty bad shape. They sum up the condition of the house by admitting that according to the standards they have been applying elsewhere in the first project area, Mrs. Sudha’s home should be demolished and she be relocated somewhere else. However, Prateek cannot bring himself to recommend the destruction of the old woman’s home. He tells you that he knows what the law requires and what the MCH project guidelines specify, but it seems wrong. He argues that “Elderly people, when relocated often lapse into senility and sometimes death. We should not treat decent people who have worked hard all their lives as though they were disposable trash just because they do not fit in certain guidelines. ” However, Tarun does not agree. He feels as strongly as Prateek but not in the same way. “It is too bad about Mrs. Sudha, and all the Mrs. Sudhas who get caught in her predicament, but there is nothing we can do about it,” says Tarun. He tells you that MCH’s job is to rehabilitate the houses when it can and demolish when it cannot, and there are laws and rules and standards that must govern those decisions. He insists that we cannot go around making exceptions; we have to be fair with everyone and that means treating everyone equally. There must be no special favours, or everyone will demand an exception, and nothing will get done The only way is to follow the rules. What would be your objective responsibility in this case? Also, clarify what is your subjective responsibility? What would be your future course of action? Is there any other essential information that you would need in order to arrive at a suitable decision? If yes, what could be this information?

You are posted as a District Collector in one of the districts in India. It has been brought to your notice that a structure has been built by few members of a religious community on the public land without getting due permissions. In keeping with the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India, disallowing the construction of any permanent religious structures on public land, you are contemplating its removal. However, the leaders of the community in question have requested you to permit the structure saying that it is for the period of month long religious festival only. Moreover, they say that there is no other religious place nearby where community members can celebrate their festival. Your seniors and the political leader of the area also support their views. However you are skeptical that after the festival is over, it may not be easy to remove the religious structure from the public land due to the involvement of community members at large. (1) Perform an objective and subjective analysis of the case. (2) What will you do in such a situation?

Answer:   Perform an objective and subjective analysis of the case.   Objective Analysis: The constitution of India caters to… Continue reading You are posted as a District Collector in one of the districts in India. It has been brought to your notice that a structure has been built by few members of a religious community on the public land without getting due permissions. In keeping with the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India, disallowing the construction of any permanent religious structures on public land, you are contemplating its removal. However, the leaders of the community in question have requested you to permit the structure saying that it is for the period of month long religious festival only. Moreover, they say that there is no other religious place nearby where community members can celebrate their festival. Your seniors and the political leader of the area also support their views. However you are skeptical that after the festival is over, it may not be easy to remove the religious structure from the public land due to the involvement of community members at large. (1) Perform an objective and subjective analysis of the case. (2) What will you do in such a situation?

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch