2017 Mock Test 8 – GS-IV: Ethics Case Study – 6

The first option in my opinion is the best option as it is fair and impartial. However, the demerit of this option is as follows. The first rule of any enquiry is that the person direct or indirectly involved with the case should not be a party to inquiry. It is quite possible that while making a report, I am unconsciously biased and minimize my responsibility.
The second option is an expedient option. Although this option is technically right but morally wrong. As the head of the district, I should have the moral courage to take responsibility for an accident resulting in a large scale tragedy. The practical merit of a solution is inferior to the moral merit.
The third option is an ideal option as it follows the rules and codes of an enquiry or investigation. This option has a strong merit. However, the demerit of this option is that this option makes me nm away from my responsibility. Yet, it can be counter argued that it does not make me run away from responsibility but on the contrary makes me more responsible by not judging an issue in which I am also a party to the crime.
The fourth option is highly unethical as it makes the cinema owners a scapegoat for committing a crime in which they were as much responsible as some of the concerned state agencies. This option has no merit to speak of.
The fifth option is both an irrational and unethical option. Every accident including the rarest of the rare kind must be caused by the action of people responsible for safe and efficient functioning of a system. This option has no merit at all except perhaps that it follows out of goodwill towards everyone, but goodwill should not overlook even unintentional crime committed by someone.
Given the context of this case, I would request to be relieved from the task of inquiry citing my individual responsibility to some extent in the tragedy. If I am not relieved, I will make a fair and impartial report indicting everyone including myself.