Mentors Comments:

• The answer must show an ethical conflict between the need to abide by the rules of recruitment (i.e. Rule of Law) versus showing empathy and compassion for someone who due to taxing circumstances may have astray the right path. 
• Arguments both for and against the decision must be shown. 
• Finally, devise a mechanism wherein without compromising with the Rules and without keeping the other institutions in dark, a compassionate solution may be created for the strayed man.

Answer:

Arguments for Rejecting the Plea of the ex-Clerical Staff:

• The merit of this option is that it is strictly as per the Rules of the Recruitment. 
• An alcoholic or even a reasonable suspect should not be appointed. Thus the Rule of Law is followed.
• By rejecting the plea the HoD will be merely telling the Statement of Fact. 
• It cannot be said that he is rejecting the case of the ex-Clerk. 
• The private University may very well see the unfortunate episode as a gone by event. Thus after proper due diligence, it may appoint the ex-Clerk, provided he has given up the drinking habit and making nuisance at workplace, as claimed by him.
• Since the HoD himself is not sure and he doubts whether the ex-Clerk has overcome his drinking problem, so by not rejecting his plea, he himself will remain in the crisis of conscience.
• At a later stage, the HoD will not be held responsible in any way if the performance of the clerk is found substandard at the workplace.

Arguments for Accepting the Plea of the ex-Clerical Staff:

• The merit in accepting his plea is that it shows compassion and empathy on part of the HoD. 
• Mechanically telling some Statement of Fact (i.e. the past facts) without suggesting the context and some recent developments would actually undermine the spirit of the Rules and Regulations.
• Even in our constitution, there is no provision for “Double Jeopardy”. He has already been punished for his misconduct. 
• It is possible that after knowing the superficial facts of the case the prospective employers may simply turn down his candidature thus punishing him again.
• The HoD must first ensure that the clerk has really overcome his problem. Ask him to produce a medical certificate of rehabilitation. Alternately help him out in getting admitted to a rehabilitation centre. 
• Since he is not a habitual alcoholic and this problem has surfaced only very recently so it can be rectified soon if he is psychologically ‘restored’. 
• For this, he needs the support of office colleagues. 
• At the same time, an alcoholic cannot be appointed if his behaviour at the office place is influenced by his drinking habits.

So after ensuring that his rehabilitation doctor has given him a certificate, you recommend favourably for him. The principle of “Double Jeopardy” requires that he cannot be punished twice. Also, it is presumed that after the ‘sentence’ period a criminal or offender is as good as a normal law-abiding citizen. If the clerk is rehabilitated clinically for his alcohol habit then there is no point in subjecting him to the same punishment or even symbolic dogma.

This all may be politely but firmly explained to the prospective new employer. Explain the overall context of his family circumstances when he took a wrong path. Otherwise, he is a good worker. You may suggest that they take an ‘Undertaking’ from him regarding his rehabilitation and that any wrongdoing at the workplace under the influence of alcohol will invite summary termination.) 

The above-mentioned way might help the Head of the Department in getting out of the dilemma which not only ensures that the ex-clerk might be able to get the job but also justifies his integrity and his actions being consonant with his conscience.