You are a no-nonsense, honest officer. You have been transferred to a remote district to head a department that is notorious for its inefficiency and callousness. You find that the main cause of the poor state of affairs is the indiscipline of a section of employees. They do not work themselves and also disrupt the working of others. You first warned the troublemakers to mend their ways or else face disciplinary action. When the warning had little effect, you issued a show cause notice to the ringleaders. As a retaliatory measure, these troublemakers instigated a woman employee amongst them to file a complaint of sexual harassment against you with the Women’s Commission. The Commission promptly seeks your explanation. The matter is also publicized in the media to embarrass you further. Some of the options to handle this situation could be as follows :1) Give your explanation to the Commission and go soft on the disciplinary action.2) Ignore the Commission and proceed firmly with the disciplinary action.3) Brief your higher-ups, seek directions from them and act accordingly. Suggest any other possible option (s). Evaluate all of them and suggest the best course of action, giving your reasons for it.
What the examiner wants
Evaluate each option for an honest officer hit by a retaliatory harassment complaint and recommend the best course.
Demand-wise check
- 1Stakeholders: you, the woman employee (possibly coerced), the ringleaders, other staff, Women's Commission, department, public≈40 words
- 2Ethical issues: due process for both sides, not prejudging the complaint, institutional respect, discipline vs personal reputation, misuse of protective law≈40 words
- 3Option (a) explain and soften action: calms things but rewards blackmail, signals that indiscipline wins≈40 words
- 4Option (b) ignore Commission and proceed firmly: discipline kept, but disrespects a statutory body and looks arrogant; (c) brief seniors and await directions: transparent but passes responsibility and delays≈40 words
- 5Recommended: inform seniors in writing, respond fully to the Commission with records, ask for inquiry by the Internal Committee, recuse from decisions on the complainant, continue documented disciplinary action, no retaliation against the woman; counsel her privately through proper channels≈40 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
Where marks usually go
- Calling the complaint false and attacking the woman, which itself violates POSH and fairness
- Choosing (a) or (b) alone without combining cooperation with firmness
Draw this
- Table: option → merits → demerits → verdict
Value addition
- LawPOSH Act 2013 requires an Internal Committee inquiry and Section 14 allows action for malicious complaints, but not for unproven ones.POSH Act 2013
- CaseVishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines, later codified in POSH Act.Supreme Court, 1997
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Shakti Dubey · AIR 1 · Page 29 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Aditya Hriday Upadhyay · Page 52 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Harsh Lodha · Page 50 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Shubham Behere · Page 52 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 14 minutes, then get it checked.