Institute of Management Development & Research

2018
ASSIGNMENT
On

BUSINESS ETHICS

Submitted by: Submitted to:

GROUP 08 Prof. Sanjay Mankikar
Shubhank Jain (14)
Virendra Walimbe (38)
Ashish Mishra (63)
Sanniya Aswal (82)
Mohd. Saif (110)
 CASE STUDY
Arun is working as an under Secretary in the pension department. One day, his friend Guru
Dutt, an SBI PO, narrates following incident:
a) For last two years, a retired Government employee Mr. Ashok Kumar is giving away 30%
of his monthly pension to Mrs. Bindu Chopra every month through cheque.
b) I found Mrs. Bindu Chopra happens to be the wife of Mr. Anil Chopra, a section officer in
the pension office under you (Arun.)
c) I feel something is fishy- may be this is part of a large bribe scam where senior citizens are
forced to pay money to clear their pension files from Prem Chopra, and have to submit bribes
in his wife’s account.

Arun visits Mr.Ashok Kumar’s house but he is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, unable to
give coherent answers. Frustrated Arun directly confronts Anil Chopra. But Anil says
“Mr.Ashok Kumar was a friend of my father. He has no relatives or children and my wife
Bindu has been taking care of him like daughter since a long time. Therefore, Mr.Ashok
Kumar gives us money out of good will, so we can send our son to an expensive IIT coaching
class at Kota, Rajasthan. Besides this is a personal family matter and none of your damn
business.”

Do you think Arun made a blunder or was he merely performing an ethical duty?

SUMMARY OF THE CASE STUDY

In this case Mr. Guru Dutt who is an SBI PO narrates an incident to Arun who is working
under the secretary of Pension Department. He tells him about the doubtful practice which is
carried out from last 2 years with Mr. Ashok Kumar. According to Mr Dutt, he thinks that it
is bribe scam against the senior citizens to get their pension files cleared. Arun reacts to this
situation in frustration and get a negative response after talking to Mr. Anil Chopra.

SITUATIONS

WHAT ARUN DID?? WHAT ARUN SHOULD HAVE

DONE?
 Arun tried to talk to Mr. Anil
Chopra directly without any
notice.
 Arun went to Mr. Anil Chopra
directly asking him about the
matter.
 Arun approached Mr. Chopra
without any evidence.
 This resulted in a very bad
feedback and a negative response
and there was no further lead
about the discussion.
 Arun should have given a prior
notice to Mr. Anil Chopra about
the discussion or enquiry to be
held.
 Arun should have approached Mr.
Anil Chopra with some evidence
about the happenings in the
organization.
 The way of consulting should
have been formal without any
frustration, in order to get a
justified response.
  There would have been a proper
enquiry if Arun had worked on the
matter, and if founded that it was a
fraud, then it would have been
easy for Arun to carry further
processes.

According to the group, whatever Arun did, Yes, it turned out in a blunder.

If it was a scam then there should be a proper proof and evidence before approaching both the
parties. It was just a discussion between Mr. Guru Dutt and Arun, on the basis of which Arun
approached Mr, Anil Chopra regarding the matter of Mr. Ashok Kumar. In which he got a
response that he is interfering in personal matter of the pensioners of the bank. Ethically
speaking,

Analysis as follow:-

1. Ethical issue was without any evidence or notice, it was wrong to ask someone directly
about the situation. Also, a banker must keep his clients’ data confidential, unless required
by the law to disclose it.

2. Ethical dimensions of all decisions and organizational processes- With all evidences and
valid proof the decision should have been made to confront Mr. Anil Chopra. It should have
first reported to the higher authority or boss of Mr. Guru Dutt and then they could have talked
to Mr. Chopra.

3. Ethical consequences of managerial actions/decisions- As Arun directly went to Mr. Anil

Chopra without any evidence which was an incorrect action action, this can break the
discipline of the department and may also allow Mr. Anil to hide the illegal action he was
doing, if any.

5. Justify the approach with Notion of moral law as Categorical Imperative/s-

The Formula of Universal Law: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]." What is a maxim in this
situation? A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. So, here the maxim is that Arun
should have not talked to Mr. Chopra directly and also Guru Dutt was not expected to tell this
information to anyone.

As this law states that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be
willing to allow everyone else to do as well and also you are not allowed to make exceptions
for yourself.

So, in this situation Guru dutt was not allowed to share the details of the customer with
anyone and if he feel something is going wrong he should have investigated first and
informed his senior. Also, in case of Arun same thing apply, he was also not allowed to go to
Mr. Chopra directly telling him that he is doing so. These things will conflicts and tension
inside the office and no one will trust them, not even the customers.