SHIKHAR MAINS 2022- DAY 54 Model Answer English
Q1. आप एक निजी बैंक में अधिकारी हैं। जब भी कोई नया सफाईकर्मी शाखा में शामिल होता है, तो आपके प्रबंधक के पास उस व्यक्ति की ईमानदारी को परखने का एक तरीका होता है। जब वह शाखा बंद करता था तो वह काउंटरों या टेबल पर कुछ दस रुपये के नोट छोड़ देता था और वह अगली सुबह राशि की जांच करता है । सफाईकर्मी को यह प्रलोभन परीक्षा को पास करनी होती है।
आपको लगता है कि सफाईकर्मी के रास्ते पर प्रलोभन डालने का यह तरीका बिल्कुल नैतिक नहीं है। आप क्या करेंगे ?
You are an officer in a private bank. Whenever a new cleaner joins the branch, your manager has a way of testing the person's honesty. He would leave a few ten-rupee notes on the counters or tables when he closes the branch. He would check the amount the next morning. The cleaner has to pass this temptation test.
You feel that this way of placing a temptation on the cleaner's path is not quite ethical. What would you do?
Ans -
The manager's method is clearly an unethical way of testing the new employee's honesty. You should take a stand against it.
Stakeholders:
- Direct: You (officer), Manager, new recruit
- Indirect: All potential recruits
Primary ethical issue:
- Is it ethical to test the honesty of a new recruit by tempting the person to steal money?
Options, merits and demerits:
1. Keep quiet.
Merits: Status quo continues; the manager may never know that you do not agree with his approach on the issue.
Demerit: Your conscience will prick you.
2. Suggest to the manager that the bank should only recruit persons with good references.
Merit: If he agrees with you, this would be an ethical solution.
Demerit: If he does not, you are back to square one.
3. Gently explain to the manager why you disagree with his approach and suggest ethical alternatives.
Merit: If he accepts your view, things will be okay.
Demerit: If he does not, your relationship with him may be affected.
Recommended: Option 2 first and, if it fails, Option 3. The recommended options are based on the Golden Rule: 'Do to others what you would like them to do to you.'
Q2. जिलाधिकारी के रूप में आप अपने जिले में चुनाव प्रचार पर नजर रख रहे हैं। एक नामी राजनीतिक नेता इलाके में प्रचार कर रहा है। एक रात, वह एक विशाल रैली को संबोधित कर रहा था। नेता के कद और भीड़ के आकार के कारण, आप व्यक्तिगत रूप से वहां मौजूद हैं।
चुनाव नियमों के अनुसार, सभी प्रचार रैलियों को रात 10 बजे तक समाप्त होना चाहिए लेकिन वह नेता अपना भाषण रात 10.30 बजे तक भी खत्म नहीं कर रहा है । आपको क्या करना चाहिये?
As the District Magistrate, you are monitoring the election campaign in your district. A well-known political leader is campaigning in the area. One night, he is giving a speech at a huge rally and, because of the stature of the leader and size of the crowd, you are personally present there.
According to the Election Rules, all campaign rallies must end at 10 pm. In this case, the leader does not end his speech even at 10.30 pm. What should you do?
ANS-
This is a straightforward case of violation of the law. You have no option other than to stop the politician from going on beyond the stipulated time.
Stakeholders:
- Direct: You (District Magistrate), the politician, crowd
- Indirect: Police, Election Commission
Primary ethical issue:
- Should you implement the election rule strictly?
Options, merits and demerits:
1. Do nothing, wait for the meeting to be over.
Merits: No escalation of issue, no disturbance by the crowd.
Demerits: You have allowed violation of rule; other parties could complain to the Election Commission.
2. Let the meeting continue to the end, but send a complaint to the Election Commission.
Merits: No immediate disturbance; you have recorded a transgression.
Demerits: You did not enforce the rule; the Election Commission could ask you for an explanation.
3. Gently let the politician know that the time limit has been exceeded. Give him some more minutes to wind up and leave.
Merits: An ethical and non-confrontationist approach; avoids protests and disturbances, yet rule has been enforced gently.
Demerit: Politicians may be encouraged to flout the rule again.
Recommended: Option 3. This is based on the utilitarian principle: 'Do what's best for the greatest number of people.' Any stoppage of the meeting by force could have led to protests and violence.
In a similar situation, an IAS officer did exactly that and succeeded in closing the meeting.
