Answer:

Introduction:

In this case study, an honest officer is facing indiscipline and disruption from a section of employees. The troublemakers instigate a sexual harassment complaint against the officer.

Body:

Option (i) – Give explanation to the Commission and go soft on disciplinary action:

Pros:

• Addresses the complaint with the Women’s Commission promptly.
• May help in resolving the issue amicably.

  Cons:

• – Sends a message of leniency towards indiscipline and disruptiveness.
• – May not effectively address the root cause of the problem.

Option (ii) – Ignore the Commission and proceed firmly with disciplinary action:

Pros:

• – Asserts authority and sends a message of zero tolerance for indiscipline.
• – Upholds the principles of fairness and discipline in the department.

  Cons:

• – Could escalate the situation and create further conflicts.
• – May result in legal complications and damage to reputation.

Option (iii) – Brief higher-ups, seek directions, and act accordingly:

Pros:

• Ensures decisions are aligned with organizational policies and legal requirements.
• Seeks guidance and support from higher authorities.

 Cons:

• May result in delays in resolving the issue.
• Creates dependency on higher authorities for decision-making.

Option (iv) – Initiate an impartial internal investigation:

  Pros:

• Demonstrates commitment to addressing the complaint and larger issues.
• Ensures a fair and transparent process.
• Allows for appropriate action against troublemakers.

  Cons:

• Investigation process may take time and resources.
• Requires unbiased committee members and expertise in handling such cases.

Conclusion:

• The best course of action would be a combination of options (iii) and (iv).
• Briefing higher-ups ensures compliance with organizational policies, while initiating an internal investigation addresses the complaint and the underlying issue of indiscipline.
• This approach upholds fairness, transparency, and accountability in handling the situation.

DOWNLOAD PDF