Discuss the following with reference to this case: (250 words)
(a) Ethical issues involved in re-appropriation of funds from a welfare project to the developmental projects.
(b) Given the need for proper utilization of public funds, discuss the options available to Rajesh Kumar. Is resigning a worthy option?
(a) Ethical issues involved in re-appropriation of funds from a welfare project to the developmental projects
- Diversion of funds from a welfare project like the National Housing Scheme (NHS) to other developmental projects can be seen as a violation of the government’s commitment to provide housing for the weaker sections of society.
- It also raises questions about the government’s prioritization of different social welfare programs and whether the needs of the most vulnerable are being adequately addressed.
- Additionally, re-appropriation of funds from a welfare project to other projects can be seen as a failure to ensure that public funds are being used in the most effective and efficient way, which goes against the principle of good governance and accountability.
- Furthermore, it raises questions about the transparency and fairness in the allocation of funds and whether the decision-making process is influenced by political considerations.
(b) Options available to Rajesh Kumar and if resigning is a worthy option
- Rajesh Kumar can report the matter to his seniors, or to the relevant oversight bodies, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, to bring attention to the ethical issues involved in the re-appropriation of funds from the NHS.
- He can also communicate his concerns to the relevant political leaders or members of the Parliament, in order to raise awareness of the potential negative impacts of re-appropriating funds from the NHS.
- Another option for Rajesh Kumar would be to try to find alternative sources of funding for the SEZ and natural gas processing plant, such as public-private partnerships or international funding.
- Resigning might be a worthy option if Rajesh Kumar feels that he cannot in good conscience participate in a process that he believes is unethical or violative of the government’s responsibilities towards the welfare of the citizens.