Ethics Case Studies: Practice Set with Model Answers

How to use this lesson

Each case below follows the five-step method: stakeholders, ethical issues, options, decision with justification, and follow-up. Try each case for 15 minutes before reading the model answer. Model answers are about 250 words, the length expected in the exam.

Case 1: Pressure to clear an unsafe building

You are an executive engineer in a city development authority. A twelve-storey residential building is ready, and its builder wants an occupancy certificate before the festive season, when 200 families plan to move in. Your inspection shows the fire-exit staircase is narrower than the approved plan and two fire hydrants are not working. The builder offers to "fix it after occupation" and a senior officer calls to say the matter is "important to people above".

Model answer

Stakeholders: future residents (safety, money already paid), the builder (profit, reputation), the senior officer and political executive, the fire department, and the public interest in safe buildings.

Ethical issues: safety of life versus commercial and political pressure; integrity and courage of conviction; accountability for a decision that could cost lives.

Options: (i) issue the certificate as asked – fast, but illegal and dangerous; (ii) refuse outright without explanation – correct but may appear obstructive; (iii) refuse in writing, list the specific deficiencies, give a short time limit for correction and offer a quick re-inspection; (iv) pass the file to another officer – evasion of duty.

Decision: Option (iii). Fire safety norms exist to protect life, and no assurance about later correction can replace compliance. A written, specific order shows that the refusal is not arbitrary, and a quick re-inspection respects the families' interest in moving in.

Handling pressure: Inform the senior officer in writing of the deficiencies and the legal position. If pressure continues, record it and inform the head of the authority.

Follow-up: Recommend that the authority publishes inspection status online, so buyers can see whether a building has its certificates, and that staged inspections are made during construction.

Case 2: A friend's company in a tender

You are on a tender committee for hospital equipment worth ₹40 crore. On opening the bids you realise that one bidder, the lowest, is a company owned by your college friend, with whom you holiday every year. No one else on the committee knows this.

Model answer

Stakeholders: the hospital and patients (quality and price), other bidders (fair competition), the committee, your friend, and you.

Ethical issues: conflict of interest, impartiality, transparency, and the appearance of bias even if your judgement would be fair.

Options: (i) stay silent because the friend is lowest anyway; (ii) quietly help the friend; (iii) disclose the relationship to the chairperson in writing and withdraw from evaluating this tender; (iv) ask the friend to withdraw the bid.

Decision: Option (iii). A conflict of interest exists whether or not you act on it; what matters is that the process is seen to be fair. Disclosure and recusal protect the hospital, the other bidders, the friend (whose win will not be questioned later) and your own integrity. Option (iv) unfairly harms a legitimate bidder and the hospital's chance of a good price.

Follow-up: Suggest that the department adopts a standard conflict-of-interest declaration for all committee members before bids are opened.

Case 3: Data that embarrasses the government

You head a state statistics office. Your new survey shows that child malnutrition has risen in three districts, contrary to recent official claims. A minister's office asks you to delay publication until after the state elections, saying "the methodology may be questioned".

Model answer

Stakeholders: children and families in the affected districts, the public, policymakers, the minister, your office and its credibility.

Ethical issues: honesty and objectivity of official statistics, political neutrality, and the duty to act on evidence of harm to children.

Options: (i) delay as asked; (ii) publish immediately without consultation; (iii) have the methodology reviewed quickly by an independent technical committee, share the results with the health and women and child development departments at once so that action can start, and publish on the announced schedule; (iv) leak the data to the media.

Decision: Option (iii). Official statistics must be independent of the electoral calendar; suppressing them would mislead the public and delay help to children. A methodological review answers the minister's concern honestly, and early sharing with departments puts the welfare of children first. Leaking is unprofessional and undermines institutional processes.

Follow-up: Propose a published release calendar for all surveys, so that release dates cannot be negotiated case by case.

Case 4: Compassion versus rules

You are a tehsildar. An elderly woman whose son died in an accident needs an income certificate to claim compensation, but her documents are incomplete because the house records were in the son's name. The deadline for the claim is in three days.

Model answer

Stakeholders: the woman (livelihood and dignity), the compensation authority, your office.

Ethical issues: compassion and responsiveness versus procedure; avoiding misuse of discretion.

Options: (i) reject for incomplete documents; (ii) issue the certificate without verification; (iii) verify income through a spot inquiry by the revenue inspector and local records the same day, issue the certificate if facts are confirmed, and help her file the claim; (iv) ask her to apply for an extension.

Decision: Option (iii). Rules on documents exist to establish facts; when the facts can be verified another lawful way, insisting on a particular document defeats the purpose. Verification protects against misuse, and help with filing shows compassion.

Follow-up: Issue an office instruction allowing field verification in hardship cases, with reasons recorded, so that similar cases do not depend on an individual officer's discretion.

What these model answers share

1. They name stakeholders and values explicitly.
2. They compare several options briefly rather than jumping to one.
3. They choose the lawful option that also protects the weakest party.
4. They handle pressure through written records and proper channels.
5. They close with a systemic fix so that the problem does not recur.

Case 5: An honest mistake by you

You are a district education officer. While reviewing scholarship disbursements you discover that your own office's software error, approved by you last year, left about 300 eligible Scheduled Caste students without their post-matric scholarship for one term. No one has noticed yet, and correcting it will require you to explain the error to the state government.

Model answer

Stakeholders: the 300 students and their families, your office, the state department, and the public that funds the scheme.

Ethical issues: accountability for one's own mistakes, honesty, and the duty of care towards students from disadvantaged groups.

Options: (i) correct the software quietly and pay future instalments only; (ii) correct the software, calculate arrears, report the error in writing to the state department with a plan to pay arrears quickly, and inform students; (iii) blame the software vendor alone; (iv) wait to see whether anyone complains.

Decision: Option (ii). The students are entitled to the missed amount, and quiet correction would deny it to them. Owning the mistake in writing is uncomfortable but builds trust and makes it possible to fix the problem properly. The vendor's role can be examined, but responsibility for approval rests with the office.

Follow-up: introduce a reconciliation check comparing approved and paid beneficiaries every term, and publish the list of beneficiaries so that students can check their own status.

Values shown: integrity, accountability, compassion and transparency.