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.

- 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.

(Answer in 250 words)
(a) Ethical issues involved
1. Corruption and abuse of office: Bribe-based CLU approvals violate integrity, legality and public trust.
2. Arbitrariness and inequality: Selective approvals undermine fairness and equal treatment before administration.
3. Public interest vs institutional stability: Seema must remove corruption without paralysing routine governance.
4. Fear and organisational culture: Honest employees are intimidated, weakening morale and administrative efficiency.
5. Accountability of superiors: Failure to act despite credible evidence would amount to tacit complicity.
6. Economic and citizen costs: Delays cause harassment, uncertainty and hinder legitimate investment.
7. Whistle-blower protection: Employees willing to cooperate may face retaliation.
(b) Options before Seema
Option 1: Ignore or act minimally
Maintains short-term stability but legitimises corruption, worsens backlog and erodes public trust.
Option 2: Launch an immediate aggressive crackdown
May expose wrongdoers quickly, but could trigger resistance, destroy evidence, intimidate innocent staff and disrupt services.
Option 3: Calibrated institutional reform — Recommended
Seema should:
- conduct a confidential preliminary inquiry and preserve records/digital trails;
- involve vigilance/anti-corruption agencies where prima facie evidence exists;
- rotate officials from sensitive posts and act against tout access;
- introduce online, chronological processing, time limits and publicly trackable application status;
- constitute multiple scrutiny teams to reduce discretionary control;
- clear the backlog through a special transparent drive;
- protect complainants and honest employees;
- initiate disciplinary/criminal proceedings based on evidence;
- engage employee unions transparently to distinguish reform from collective victimisation.
This option best combines integrity with administrative continuity. Seema should attack the corrupt network while redesigning processes so that corruption becomes structurally difficult, ensuring fairness, efficiency and restoration of public confidence.