Ms. X is a mid-level civil service official working in the urban development department of a major city. Recently, she was involved in approving a contract for a public infrastructure project — a new community park. During the approval process, she received a piece of confidential information indicating that one of the shortlisted contractors had a history of poor workmanship and allegations of corruption in other cities, though nothing had been legally proven. The Head of the Department, Mr. Y, advised her not to disclose this information to the project committee or the public because it could delay the project and damage the city's reputation. However, Ms. X believed that withholding such information compromised transparency and public trust. What amongst the following should Ms. X do now ? 1. Immediately disclose the information to the project committee and the public 2. Recommend removing the contractor from the shortlist to protect the project's integrity 3. Propose a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the information confidential from the public for the time being Select the answer using the code given below :
A
1 and 2 only
B
3 only
Correct answer
C
2 and 3 only
D
1, 2 and 3
Explanation
The allegations against the contractor are unproven, so making them public at once (1) could be unfair and breach confidentiality, and pushing for removal from the shortlist on that basis alone (2) would pre-judge the case. Limited disclosure to an oversight committee (3) puts the information before people who can verify it and act, upholding transparency and public trust without a public trial. UPSC's key accepts 3 only.
GovernanceEthics in procurement: transparency vs due processTransparencyConfidential informationOversight committeeDue processPublic procurement