Q. Seema is a senior bureaucrat with a reputation of honesty and professional efficiency. She has recently been posted as the District Collector (DC) to Surinder Nagar, where a large industrial area is being established
The new industrial area had caused many farmers to submit applications for change of land use (CLU) to convert their farmlands into residential areas. There is an unusually large backlog of these applications awaiting processing. Seema noticed that some applications had been approved selectively with no visible chronological pattern. The case files showed a few complaints of some approvals being subject to receipt of large bribes from the applicants.
On further fact-finding, Seema realized that a small group of touts was controlling this illegal activity through some subordinate officials in the Collectorate. This had created a fear in the other employees who were reluctant to process any application. The resultant backlog has been piling up thereby hindering local economic progress and causing public dissatisfaction.
Seema was faced with a major moral and administrative challenge of dismantling this corruption network without hampering daily administrative operations. An aggressive internal investigation would result in institutional resistance and, possibly, a backlash from labour unions. Conversely, ignoring this situation would encourage the wrongdoers and unnecessarily continue this avoidable harassment to the populace.
(a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(b) Discuss the options open to Seema. Identify the recommended option and justify it.
Question from UPSC Mains 2026 GS4 Paper
Model Answer:
The case presents a crisis of public trust, pitting bureaucratic integrity and lawful enforcement against institutional paralysis, administrative inertia, and fear of union backlash.
1. Ethical Issues Involved
- Breach of Public Trust & Probity: Exploitation of regulatory authority for rent-seeking, violating Nolan’s principle of Integrity and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Administrative Inertia vs. Duty: Honest officials paralyzed by fear reflects moral cowardice and neglect of official duty.
- Denial of Distributive Justice: Selective approvals penalize honest farmers, violating fairness and equality before law (Article 14).
- Institutional Decay: Collusion between touts and officials erodes state legitimacy, undermining regional economic development.
2. Evaluation of Options
- Option 1: Mass vigilance enquiry and immediate blanket suspensions
- Merit: Sends an unyielding signal against corruption.
- Demerit: Triggers union backlash, stalls routine administration, and victimizes intimidated staff.
- Option 2: Clear the backlog pragmatically without penal action
- Merit: Restores immediate administrative output and avoids conflict.
- Demerit: Institutionalizes impunity and compromises professional ethics.
- Option 3: Targeted surgical deterrence coupled with digital process re-engineering (Recommended)
- Merit: Dismantles the corrupt nexus without halting public service delivery.
3. Recommended Course of Action and Justification
- Surgical Legal Deterrence: Deploy anti-corruption agencies for evidence-led action against ringleader touts and compromised staff (PC Act, 1988), preventing collective victimisation.
- Process Automation (Disintermediation): Digitize the CLU system via a transparent First-In, First-Out (FIFO) dashboard (e.g., Karnataka’s Bhoomi portal) to eliminate discretionary human touchpoints.
- Enforcing Accountability: Implement strict service timelines with deemed approval clauses under the Right to Service Act.
- Staff Reassurance & Protection: Issue written assurances protecting compliant staff, institute whistleblower safeguards, and engage union leaders openly on zero-tolerance norms.
Marrying surgical punitive deterrence with structural digital reforms restores institutional probity, eliminates tout networks, and upholds citizen-centric, accountable governance.
