Total Questions : 1
-
Case Study
Ramesh Verma is the District Mining Officer (DMO) in a mineral-rich but economically backward district. The region has long struggled with illegal sand and stone mining, controlled by local contractors with strong political backing. These activities cause environmental damage, loss of state revenue, and frequent accidents involving villagers.
Soon after joining, Ramesh noticed that illegal mining continued openly at night despite repeated complaints. When he ordered surprise inspections and seizure of vehicles, he received a phone call from a local legislator, who advised him to “go slow” in the interest of maintaining social peace and employment. Informally, Ramesh was told by senior colleagues that previous officers who acted strictly were transferred within months.
Over time, a clear nexus emerged. Local politicians protected mining operators, the police avoided registering cases, and criminal groups ensured intimidation of villagers who protested. In return, illegal operators funded election campaigns and paid regular bribes to officials at multiple levels. Files related to mining violations were deliberately delayed or diluted in the district offices.
One evening, a serious accident occurred when an overloaded mining truck hit a group of villagers, killing two people. Public anger erupted, and media attention focused on the administration’s failure. Political leaders blamed “rogue elements” and pressured Ramesh to certify that the truck was operating legally.
Ramesh now faces a critical ethical dilemma. If he records the truth and initiates strict action, he risks political pressure, personal threats, and possible transfer. If he compromises, he becomes part of the political–bureaucratic–criminal nexus, undermining the rule of law, environmental protection, and public trust.
As a public servant, Ramesh must decide how to uphold integrity, legality, and accountability in an environment where institutional support appears weak and vested interests are deeply entrenched.
Q.1 Identify the ethical issues involved in the above case.
Q.2 How does the political–bureaucratic–criminal nexus affect public interest, environmental governance, and the credibility of public institutions?
Q.3 What should be the most ethically appropriate course of action in this case? Suggest both immediate administrative steps and long-term institutional reforms to prevent the recurrence of such political–bureaucratic–criminal nexuses.
GS Paper 4 Case Studies
