409200314573

public duty to serve public interest,giving it high priority than personal and
private interest
conflict of interest shuld be identified and dealt rationally in transparant
manner
Dilemma fro kausal
1)either to follow his duty to be honest,integrated and accountable(he is
accountable quality of construction work etc ) or to follow hierarchy of
command, ,organisation's fame,rules and confidentiality
2)either to go via conscience,objectivity to raise/stop malpractices or to
stick to legal domain of his responsilbilty which limits the whistleblowing
action
3)it will be ethically unjustifiable if kausal without followingup actions by
krishnan on the matter(which may already in place/course) or some other
person have already initiated them to proper authorities and as it is not clear
from reply of Chief secretary whether the culprits or irregularities are being
protected by govt or not as the response by him was to not raise the issue in
official capacity which may be exposed to media etc hence further problem
for present govt which might already doing justice in previous scam.
4)indulging in this potentially political and more senstive issue which in future
maynot result in any admirable outcome and even relection and loss of huge
public money in the process as compared to amt of presently going financial
misallocations , even personal career prospect and hence more capacity and
capability to serve effectively may become limited in future OR to head to
heart and mind which calls for zero tlerance for corruption where money of
innocent public is involved

12) vajiram
In the context of situation infront of X, morally condoning him or not is
essentially a classical quest to find what short of moral guidleines/standard
should guide our acts.
is X doing 'right' by looking the positive outcome by concealing

question (1)was police firing justified?

1)police firing could have been easily justified if no human loss/injury had
occured.Though it was police'duty to prevent illegal activities which also
happen to be immoral(killing sacrifcing animals) .The tragedy at festival was
outcome of several lapse on account of policing and could have been
prevented at first place by not delaying police action till surge of villagers for
rituals and sacrifice and arranging extra police forces,Even though the police
failed to do this,it could have prevented lossess of lives as firing shots at
huge unruly gathering which was potentailly dangerous.Firing in return when
provoked after attempt to sacrifice policeman was an option but not best
either ethically or morally as police force was already limited and furious mob
could have done greater harm to police and themselves also.better way was
to preemptly sense the situation and not to deal with gathering single
handeldy(as like dedicated policeman did).In sum
utilitarian ethics prefers to choose least harm option that is
(1)as per situation during festival night,and paucity of force and swift
sequence of events it was ethical to allow sacrifice happen if villagers didnt
heed warning and held them after FIR next morning
2)laws,rules and regulation r for public, if whole public dont understand them
than it is impossible to enforce them forcibly,best option was to guide,counsel
villagers with help of NGO and media

question(2) what could have been done to

prevent such incidences?
1)precautionary steps like extra force,tear gases,water cannon ,flash lights
etc should have been available
3)drunken villagers shud be arrested before their entry to temple
2)Dont wait event to occur,gram panchayt meetng should be called earlier
and police reresnetaives,DC,NGO should dessiminate the information about
laws,non-ethics of killing animals and all confrontation should be difused
early
4)earlier incidents of law breaking should have been dealt with strictness so
that villagers can be dissuaded from future illegal rituals

question(3) Did you think that authorities

followed light hearted approach?

yes due to following evidences
1)IG directing SP to prevent the illegal acts at festival which ceaslessly took
place since last 200 years was too simplistic action as it was not possible to
stop the historical festival with few ordinary guidlelines.Multiprnged approach
was required like organisaing meetings with villagers,NGO,Activist ,proper
counseling about law of the land by taking n confidence the elders of village
2)SP dircting DSP to install temp police station wth 20 policeman was
inadeqaute and too late step.also proper logistics were not available like tear
gas,ambulance,and rubber cartlidge gun etc
3)DM oderder was also too late and less aggressive approach

question(4) Placing urself as DM of the district (your

first posting),what steps u learn from the incident?
1)avoid late actions by preemption based diffusion of situation
2)involve members of village to take them in confidence about need of law of
land and finding aletrnatives by compromising like allowing rituals but only
legal one
3)cooperate administration with police ,close follow up of ground situation
with help of police
4) Always deploy sufficient force wrt to strenght and type of gathering etc

quesstion(5) was it ethical to prevent rituals?

sacrifcing animals for rituals and prayers was ethically justifiable in proto
societies but in modern societies where rules of living have been
universalized and agreed upon by majority of people and genesis of state and
constitution which enforce them are widely agreed ,it would be immoral to kill
animals for old age rituals which civil society dont allow.Given that village
was administartively and socially also part of this civvil socciety and has to
follow the law of the land.
But to justify that prevention was ethical will demand that prevention should
be based on consent of villagers by taking them into confidence and by
convincing them after listening their argument.if we enforce law of banning

animal killing for sacrfice by force it would be act of coercion and no good will
happen as the cheif actor here are villagers not the larger media or country
which are merely onlookers.
The village is part of country which floats constituitonal duty for all of us to
stop animal killings for rituals.also we have law to prevent exploitation of
animals. Act by administration is ethical so far as the village is organic part of
country and religious freedom is not restricted and constituational
duties(curbing animals killings) upheld.

safeguard public security and legal safety; to fight crime and work on solving
offenses; aiding the general public and assisting the authorities in the
execution of their work, and to maintain general peace and rule of order.

intellectual integrity of the officer is certainly under attack when he limits his
study to researches of scientists on company's role.The tobacco issue is
important as it can directly affect the health of general public (both active
and pasive smokers).It is no doubt true that in domain of buisness ethics,
best aletrnative is to maximise gain preferably for all
stackholders(company,consumers,govt etc) and this approach is sustainable
too on long term basis as tobacco sales revenue will be there till public health
is in check and the state is not forced to clampdown sales of tobacco
products.
Limiting the study to inhouse research makes his decision most susceptible to
criticism thereby harming his integrity.Even if he argue/thinks that no good
research work is available outside company ,he needed to justify it by
evidences or by collabarating with neutral research doing party like univeristy
or some NGOs.
Intellectual integrity demands rationality, transparency,objectiveness .He fails
on the last two grounds.