Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a Part of his Job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case of strike by the drivers' union of City Transport Department over the issue of Compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter. He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which Passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the bus and a car driver by a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver's condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come at the spot of accident and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There was exchange of blows between them. The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver's (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved, depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers' union took up this case and when found no favorable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union's demand was two-fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to onefamily member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains. (a) What are the options available to Rakesh to meet the above situation? (b) Critically examine each of the options identified by Rakesh. (c) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Rakesh? (d) What course of action would Rakesh adopt to diffuse the above situation. UPSC IAS Mains 2022 General Studies (Paper – 4)

The above case study is an example of dilemma between professional duty and human values. Situation requires a need to strike a balance between ability to uphold professionalism but not to lose our human values.

Stakeholders involved

1. Rakesh as commissioner of transport department.
2. Deceased bus driver.
3. Middle aged man.
4. Driver’s union.
5. Family of deceased bus driver.

(a) Options available to Rakesh to meet the above situation.

(i) Providing compensation to the family.

(ii) Providing job and compensation to the family.

(iii) Denying job and compensation to the family.

(iv) Denying job and compensation to family under the undue pressure of union but find other schemes through which  help can be provided to family.

(b) Examination of each option by Rakesh: 

i Providing Compensation to the family- 

Merit

1. 1. Can be done on compassionate grounds.
   2. Compassionate behaviour towards the deceased family, sustenance of family members including daughters. 
   3. Calms and extends a helping hand to aggrieved family.
   4. May end the 10 days strike

Demerit

1. 1. Breakdown of discipline of others.
   2. It was the driver who lost his temper as evident in
   3. Leniency may encourage such behaviour further.
   4. Unfair and unjust demands should not be agreed

ii Providing job and compensation to the family.

Merit

1. 1. This goes beyond mere compassion and creates employment opportunity for the future.
   2. Win the loyalty and confidence of the Corporation drivers.
   3. Also brings to an end the strike.   

Demerit

1. 1. Breakdown of discipline of others.
   2. It was the driver who lost his temper as evident in
   3. Leniency may encourage such behaviour further.
   4. Unfair and unjust demands should not be agreed

iii Denying job and extra compensation to the family.

Merit

1. 1. As evident, the heated argument between driver and car driver took place and driver lost his temper.
   2. FIR reveals that quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he resorted to physical violence.

Demerit

1. 1. Shows inhuman approach towards the family.
   2. Driver was the sole bread winner of the family.
   3. Family should not be punished for the mistake of
   4. Loss of faith in Corporation by other drivers.

iv Denying job and compensation to family under the undue pressure of union but find other schemes through which help can be provided to family. 

Merits

1. 1. Shows conviction of character and integrity.
   2. It is evident that the driver was at fault, he lost the temper, he not only did jeopardies his own life, but he compromised the lives of others in bus. 
   3. Union is also wrong here and is exerting undue pressure.
   4. While it is evident that the driver was at fault, but it is not correct to punish his family for his wrongdoing, so I will seek and release the PF, and any other schemes in which I can ensure that the education of his daughters is taken care of.

No Demerits 

(c) Ethical dilemmas being faced by Rakesh. 

1. Conduct of professional duty vs human values
2. Resolution of conflict vs choosing the right thing to do.
3. Showing strength of conviction, withstanding pressure to influence independent judgement.
4. Principle of fairness vs empathy and compassion for the deceased family.