(a) “A mere compliance with law is not enough, the public servant also has to have a well-developed sensibility to ethical issues for effective discharge of duties.” Do you agree? Explain with the help of two examples, where (i) an act is ethically right, but not legally and (ii) an act is legally right, but not ethically. (b) How do the virtues of trustworthiness and fortitude get manifested in public service? Explain with examples.

Law as the floor, ethics as the ceiling

Law prescribes the minimum enforceable standard; ethics demands the higher standard of what ought to be done. A public servant with only legal compliance but no ethical sensibility becomes a rule-following robot, blind to justice and human consequence. I agree fully.

(a) Two illustrative situations

• Ethically right, but not legal: A doctor administering an unapproved life-saving drug in an emergency, or an official quietly feeding starving migrants from stock meant for a different scheme during a disaster. The act violates rules yet serves a higher moral good.
• Legally right, but not ethical: Evicting slum dwellers on encroached land in peak monsoon with a valid court order but no rehabilitation, or exploiting a legal tax loophole that starves the exchequer. Fully lawful, yet ethically indefensible.

(b) Trustworthiness and fortitude in public service

Trustworthiness is the confidence that an officer will keep her word, guard confidential information and act consistently in the public interest. It manifests when a bureaucrat resists pressure to leak examination papers or protects a whistle-blower's identity.

Fortitude is moral and physical courage to persist despite hardship or threats. It manifests when officers like T.N. Seshan enforced electoral discipline against political pressure, or when an honest officer resists transfers and threats to stop illegal mining.

Conclusion

Legality without ethical sensibility is hollow; trustworthiness and fortitude convert authority into just and effective governance.