Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

The District Collector is confronted with a complex ethical dilemma involving deep-rooted corruption in a government-funded rural development project. The situation demands a careful balance between exposing malpractice by politically connected contractors and ensuring uninterrupted delivery of essential public services, all while upholding administrative integrity and professional duty.

Body

1. What options are available to you to ensure that the corruption in the project is thoroughly investigated, while minimizing disruption to public services?

Option 1: Strict Legal Action and Full Disclosure

• Action: Immediately report the corruption to higher authorities and anti-corruption agencies. Suspend ongoing work, blacklist contractors, and initiate disciplinary proceedings against involved officials.
• Likely Result:
  • Positive: Strong message against corruption; personal integrity upheld; systemic accountability initiated.
  • Negative: Project halts, delaying essential infrastructure; political backlash likely; personal career may face repercussions (transfer or sidelining).

Option 2: Corrective Supervision Without Public Disclosure

• Action: Keep the project running but bring in third-party auditors and technical experts to strictly monitor quality and expenditures. Warn contractors informally, demand course correction, and quietly replace the most non-compliant ones.
• Likely Result:
  • Positive: Services continue with improved oversight; public disruption minimized.
  • Negative: Root corruption remains partially unaddressed; ethical compromise in not taking punitive action against the corrupt.

Option 3: Strategic Escalation Through Institutional Channels

• Action: Gather evidence discreetly and escalate the issue confidentially to higher bureaucratic and vigilance authorities. Wait for formal orders while continuing minimal critical work under close monitoring.
• Likely Result:
  • Positive: Corruption addressed through formal institutions; less personal risk; lawful process followed.
  • Negative: Delay in concrete action; public may perceive inaction; political pressure may continue.

Option 4: Community and Media Engagement for Transparency

• Action: Involve local civil society and media to expose irregularities transparently. Conduct social audits and bring public pressure to ensure fair inquiry and contractor accountability.
• Likely Result:
  • Positive: Public mobilization builds trust; corruption gets wide attention; long-term institutional reform possible.
  • Negative: Political backlash escalates rapidly; career at risk; work may halt amid controversy.

2. What course of action would you take to maintain your integrity and balance the investigation with the need for continued public service delivery?

The course of action would be a synthesis of Option 2 and 3:

• Initiate Corrective Measures without Halting the Project: Allow the project to continue, but immediately bring in a third-party technical audit team (e.g., government engineering college or PWD experts) to inspect the quality of ongoing work. (Option 2)
  • Ensures continuity of public services (roads, sanitation, housing) while identifying and correcting substandard work.
• Escalate the Issue Institutionally: Document the corruption evidence and submit a confidential report to the Chief Secretary, State Vigilance Commission, and Accountant General, requesting their formal intervention. (Option 3)
  • Allows to act within the system, follow due process, and avoid politicizing the issue while protecting yourself legally.
• Tighten Monitoring and Transparency: Set up real-time monitoring tools (e.g., geo-tagged progress photos, contractor performance dashboards), and introduce local-level social audits involving credible NGOs or retired officials. (Option 2)
  • Strengthens transparency, creates checks on ongoing work, and deters further misuse of funds.
• Penalize and Replace Worst Offenders: For contractors with the most serious violations, initiate penalties or partial blacklisting as per procurement rules and begin re-tendering their portion without stopping the full project.
  • Sends a message of accountability while allowing other compliant portions of the project to continue.
• Maintain Ethical and Legal Documentation: Keep detailed records of all decisions, evidence, and communications. (Option 3)
  • If political backlash arises, documented actions can help defend your position and justify your balanced approach.

This approach ensures:

• Integrity is upheld through lawful and documented actions. (Aligns with deontological ethics, which emphasizes duty, rule-based conduct, and acting out of moral obligation, as per Kantian principles.)
• Corruption is addressed without abrupt disruption.
• Public services continue, fulfilling your duty as District Collector. (Reflects role-based ethics or professional dharma, where the moral responsibility lies in performing one's official duties with accountability and impartiality.)
• Personal risk is managed, as you act within rules and involve institutions rather than taking isolated or confrontational steps. (Aligns with virtue ethics, especially the virtues of prudence, courage, and practical wisdom; also in line with Gandhian ethics of institutional non-violence and ethical resistance.)

3. What long-term reforms would you consider implementing in your district to prevent similar situations of corruption in future government projects, and how would you ensure that such reforms gain traction in the face of political and administrative resistance?

• E-Procurement and End-to-End Digital Transparency: Make tendering, bidding, contractor selection, work orders, and fund disbursal fully digital and publicly accessible through an e-Governance platform.
  • Reduces human discretion and political manipulation; builds audit trails.
  • Integrate with state-level e-procurement portals and publish dashboards online.
• Contractor Performance Rating System: Introduce a district-level performance rating system for contractors based on quality, timeliness, and compliance.
  • Encourages merit-based selection over political patronage.
• Institutionalize Social Audits and Citizen Oversight: Make social audits mandatory for all major infrastructure projects over a certain budget.
  • Public oversight adds pressure for honest delivery and uncovers ground-level deviations.
• Independent Third-Party Monitoring Units (TPMU): Set up a District Project Monitoring Cell under the DM’s office with retired officials, engineers, and academics as members.
  • Technical scrutiny independent of departmental influence.
• Capacity Building and Ethics Training for Officials: Conduct regular training programs on ethical governance, vigilance rules, and project management for junior engineers, BDOs, and clerical staff.
  • Increases awareness of rules, reduces collusion, and builds administrative professionalism.
• Procurement Reforms and Pre-Bid Screening: Enforce stricter eligibility norms (e.g., financial history, quality record) and make pre-bid scrutiny mandatory.
  • Prevents repeat offenders from entering the system.

Ensuring Implementation Amid Political & Administrative Resistance:

• Anchor Reforms in State and Central Guidelines: Align reforms with Central schemes’ mandates (e.g., PMGSY, AMRUT) and CVC/CPWD guidelines to make them difficult to oppose locally.
• Frame Reforms as Efficiency and Cost-Saving Measures: Present transparency reforms not just as anti-corruption tools but as tools for faster execution, cost-efficiency, and improved public satisfaction — making them more palatable to political actors.
• Build Stakeholder Ownership: Involve local MLAs, MPs, and Panchayat heads early in the reform dialogue. Highlight how clean projects enhance their public image and electoral capital.
• Use Pilot Models and Showcase Success: Pilot these reforms in one or two blocks, document successes (e.g., cost savings, public praise), and use them to expand reforms district-wide.
• Regular Public Reporting and Recognition: Publish monthly performance reports, highlight clean projects in media, and reward honest officials publicly — building a culture of accountability.
• Institutional Memory Through SOPs: Draft and implement Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for project oversight, so processes become system-driven, not person-dependent.

Conclusion:

In line with Indian philosophy, Dharma demands righteous action without attachment to personal gain or fear of loss. Upholding truth (Satya) and duty (Kartavya) ensures long-term justice and public good. As a public servant, one must act with Nishkama Karma—selfless service guided by ethical conviction.