ETHICS GS IV ::24-AUGUST-2019: SECTION B

Q1. You are a Head of Department in a premier University. Recently a clerical staff in your department was terminated from the job as he was found under the influence of alcohol during office hours. In the previous month there were a lot of complaints regarding his poor quality of work, tardiness and some incoherent behaviour. Later you came to know that this change in behaviour was concurrent with the death of his wife after a prolonged illness. It has also made him debt ridden. This may be further compounded by the fact that he has a daughter to marry off soon and a differently abled son to take care of.

He desperately needs a job. He has applied for a position at a private University and has already given your name as a reference. He pleads you to give him a good recommendation and not mention his drinking, which he assures you is now under control. He also asks you to mention that he voluntarily left the University to address a family medical crisis and that the University was pleased with his work.

You like this person and believe that he is a good worker when he is not drinking. But you doubt whether he has really overcome his drinking problem.

Valid arguments can be advanced, both, for rejecting his plea with the consequence that his condition may become even worse and for accepting his plea with a noble intention, but keeping the third party in dark. What could those arguments be? Could there be any better way to get out of this dilemma? If so, outline the main elements of this third way, pointing out its merits. (250 words)