2017 Mock Test -12: GS-IV: Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude – Case Study -5
While every option from the first down to fifth is ethical decisions, none can be said to be the best.
If Ajay Singh agrees with the decision regarding non-extension of his tenure but feels internally that he has been victimized, he is not doing justice to himself. If on the other hand, he feels that his term is over and he should move ahead without any complaint then probably he is justified in doing whatever he is doing. However, given the case, it appears that Ajay Singh is convinced that justice has not been met with him.
The second option is good only so far as Ajay Singh agrees to speak to the authorities to find out grievances against him but in so far as he promises to abide by what they want him to do, it runs against the principle of independence in taking free and fair decision. In addition, it shows Ajay Singh is ready to compromise only to save his job. In that sense, it is an unethical decision. So, I would not recommend this option or the later part of the option.
The third option is a rational decision. However, it is quite likely that with the sense of victimization dominating his mind. He may not be able to think impart ioily and rationally. He will tend to think that the authorities are against him and taking revenge against him, which might not possibly be correct.
The fourth option is the better option and also an ethical step. Ajay Singh is willing to introspect in consultation with an expert.
His background and workplace behaviour will help the counselor in understanding why he consistently faced problems with his seniors. On the basis of this analysis, if the counselor thinks Ajay Singh is honest and his integrity is creating problems for his seniors, then I would recommend Ajay Singh to challenge the verdict in a court because it is highly ethical to fight for justice and tolerating injustices is unethical.