2016 · GS Paper 4 · Q9 · 20 marks
A fresh engineering graduate gets a job in a prestigious chemical industry. She likes the work. The salary is also good. However, after a few months she accidentally discovers that a highly toxic waste is being secretly discharged into a river nearby. This is causing health problems to the villagers downstream who depend on the river for their water needs. She is perturbed and mentions her concern to her colleagues who have been with the company for longer periods. They advise her to keep quiet as anyone who mentions the topic is summarily dismissed. She cannot risk losing her job as she is the sole bread-winner for her family and has to support her ailing parents and siblings. At first, she thinks that if her seniors are keeping quiet, why should she stick out her neck. But her conscience pricks her to do something to save the river and the people who depend upon it. At heart she feels that the advice of silence given by her friends is not correct though she cannot give reasons for it. She thinks you are a wise person and seeks your advice. (a) What arguments can you advance to show her that keeping quiet is not morally right? (b) What course of action would you advise her to adopt and why?
In short
Keeping quiet is wrong because silence makes her complicit in poisoning villagers whose right to clean water the Supreme Court protects under Article 21. She should gather evidence, use the company's vigil mechanism, then approach the Pollution Control Board or NGT, while protecting her family financially.
Model answer
Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026 · 269 words
Silence is complicity
"If seniors are quiet, why should I speak" is Diffusion of Responsibility, which lets harm continue.
People are not means
Kant held that persons must never be used merely as means; silence trades villagers' health for her salary.
A right is violated
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) read pollution-free water into Article 21, and the Water Act, 1974 bars such discharge.
Harm compounds
Bhopal (1984) showed how ignored safety warnings inside a plant end in mass tragedy.
Evidence first
Record dates, discharge points and visible effects quietly and lawfully.
Internal channel
Raise it in writing through the company's vigil mechanism under Section 177 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Regulator next
If ignored, complain confidentially to the State Pollution Control Board or the National Green Tribunal, possibly through an NGO.
Protect the family
Build savings and explore other jobs, since the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 covers only public servants.
This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.
Practise this question
1Get the answer sheet
Sized for this question.
2Write your answer
Timed, by hand.
3Get it marked
Your score and what to fix.
This chapter in the exam
Corporate Conduct8 questions
Asked in 7 of 14 sittings since 2013
- 2024Sneha is a Senior Manager working for a big reputed hospital chain in a mid-sized city. She has been made in-charge of the new super speciality center that the hospital is building with state-of-the art equipment and world class medical facilities. The building has been reconstructed and she is starting the process of procurement for various equipment and machines. As the head of the committee responsible for procurement, she has invited bids from all the interested reputed vendors dealing in medical equipment. She notices that her brother, who is a well-known supplier in this domain, has also sent his expression of interest. Since the hospital is privately owned, it is not mandatory for her to select only the lower bidder. Also, she is aware that her brother's company has been facing some financial difficulties and a big supply order will help him recover. At the same time, allocating the contract to her brother might bring charges of favouritism against her and tarnish her image. The hospital management trusts her fully and would support any decision of hers. (a) What should be Sneha's course of action? (b) How would she justify what she chooses to do? (c) In this case, how is medical ethics compromised with vested personal interest?
- 2022Prabhat was working as Vice President (Marketing) at Sterling Electric Ltd., a reputed multinational company. But presently the company was passing through the difficult times as the sales were continuously showing downward trend in the last two quarters. His division, which hitherto had been a major revenue contributor to the company's financial health, was now desperately trying to procure some big government order for them. But their best efforts did not yield any positive success or breakthrough. His was a professional company and his local bosses were under pressure from their London-based HO to show some positive results. In the last performance review meeting taken by the Executive Director (India Head), he was reprimanded for his poor performance. He assured them that his division is working on a special contract from the Ministry of Defence for a secret installation near Gwalior and tender is being submitted shortly. He was under extreme pressure and he was deeply perturbed. What aggravated the situation further was a warning from the top that if the deal is not clinched in favour of the company, his division might have to be closed and he may have to quit his lucrative job. There was another dimension which was causing him deep mental torture and agony. This pertained to his personal precarious financial health. He was a single earner in the family with two school-college going children and his old ailing mother. The heavy expenditure on education and medical was causing a big strain to his monthly pay packet. Regular EMI for housing loan taken from bank was unavoidable and any default would render him liable for severe legal action. In the above backdrop, he was hoping for some miracle to happen. There was sudden turn of events. His secretary informed that a gentleman—Subhash Verma wanted to see him as he was interested in the position of Manager which was to be filled in by him in the company. He further brought to his notice that his CV has been received through the office of the Minister of Defence. During interview of the candidate—Subhash Verma, he found him technically sound, resourceful and experienced marketer. He seemed to be well-conversant with tendering procedures and having knack of follow-up and liaising in this regard. Prabhat felt that he was better choice than the rest of the candidates who were recently interviewed by him in the last few days. Subhash Verma also indicated that he was in possession of the copies of the bid documents that the Unique Electronics Ltd. would be submitting the next day to the Defence Ministry for their tender. He offered to hand over those documents subject to his employment in the company on suitable terms and conditions. He made it clear that in the process, the Sterling Electric Ltd. could outbid their rival company and get the bid and hefty Defence Ministry order. He indicated that it will be win-win situation for both—him and the company. Prabhat was absolutely stunned. It was a mixed feeling of shock and thrill. He was uncomfortable and perspiring. If accepted, all his problems would vanish instantly and he may be rewarded for securing the much awaited tender and thereby boosting company's sales and financial health. He was in a fix as to the future course of action. He was wonder-struck at the guts of Subhash Verma in having surreptitiously removing his own company papers and offering to the rival company for a job. Being an experienced person, he was examining the pros and cons of the proposal/situation and he asked him to come the next day. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. (b) Critically examine the options available to Prabhat in the above situation. (c) Which of the above would be the most appropriate for Prabhat and why?
All 8 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.
Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2016 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.