Q. As a senior officer in the finance ministry, you have access to some confidential and crucial information about the policy decisions that the government is about to announce. These decisions are likely to have a far-reaching impact on the housing and construction industry. If the builders have access to this information beforehand, they can make huge profits. One of the builders has done a lot of quality work for the government and is known to be close to your immediate superior, who asks you to disclose this information to the said builder.
What are the options available to you?
Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons
One option could be to pass on the information to the builder. It can be argued that the builder did quality work for the government and deserves to be awarded. Another plausible argument is that officers are obliged under service discipline to obey the orders of the superior officers. Both arguments are fallacious.
If a builder is to be awarded for quality or timely work, it could be only in accordance with a contract. It may provide for some performance incentives. If he meets the requirements, he can be given those incentives. If he meets the requirements, he can be given those incentives. Other than this, no benefits are admissible.
While officers have to obey orders of superiors, they cannot obey illegal orders. Duty of the
Obedience applies only to lawful orders. The immediate superior’s order is illegal. Some government policies are commercially sensitive. No one should divulge them prematurely to interested parties. They are made public to all at the same through authorized official releases.
Another very risky option is to tip off the builder through a reliable third party. The premature leak of a sensitive policy, if discovered, will lead to police investigations and the officer can go to jail for divulging official secrets. As this an open and shut case, no option other than politely refusing to follow the illegal orders is available. One may try to resort to tricks or evasive conduct such as conveying wrong information or informing the builder only after the policy become public. There is no point in trying these ruses. It is better to refuse upfront to divulge the matter.