Neither Punished by Headline nor Rewarded by Silence: What a Fair Posting Looks Like After the Indore Water Deaths

A Finding Is Not a Penalty, but a Collector's Chair Is Not Neutral

Imagine you are the officer who must sign this transfer list. A judicial commission appointed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held Rohit Sisonia one of two officials primarily responsible for the Bhagirathpura water contamination.

It found lapses in inspections, lapses in repair work and repeated delays in replacing a failing pipeline. The report linked 22 deaths to the tragedy, though higher figures are claimed and over 1,400 people fell ill. Weeks later, the list in front of you makes him Collector of Raisen.

The easy answer would be to strike his name and move on. But that easy answer has a cost too.

Why the Officer's Claim Is Real

A commission's finding is a fact-finding conclusion, not a penalty.

• No final order exists. As of mid-October, the High Court has not passed binding punitive orders on the named officials.
• The Constitution requires due process. Article 311 says no civil servant can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without an inquiry and a reasonable chance to be heard.
• Postings are not penalties. The government also has legitimate power to post officers where it needs them. If a newspaper headline can decide an officer's career, the service learns something dangerous: careers can be ended without a hearing whenever public anger runs high. That is a real injustice and it falls on a specific person.

Why the Victims' Claim Is Also Real A Collector is not

just another post. The Collector is the face of the state in a district: the officer citizens petition when water, health or safety fails. Handing that role to an officer just named for a fatal public-health failure sends a clear message.

To the families of Bhagirathpura and to every honest officer watching, it says accountability ended at the suspension order. Opposition leaders have already called it favouritism. Whether or not that charge is fair, an unexplained posting gives it room to grow.

Applying the Framework Two moral claims pull against each other.

• Duty-based ethics says a person must not be punished without a fair process. That protects the officer.
• Consequence-based ethics says institutions survive on trust. That protects the victims and the service's credibility. Here, the two do not have to be traded off all or nothing, because there are postings in between.

The Resolution

I would not post him as Collector and I would not punish him either. I would choose a non-field posting until disciplinary proceedings conclude, decided openly through the state's Civil Services Board with reasons recorded on file.

The Supreme Court directed every state to set up such Boards in the T.S.R. Subramanian case, in its judgment of 31 October 2013, precisely so that postings would rest on recorded, impartial reasoning. This choice costs something real.

The officer loses a career-defining field post before any final finding and if he is exonerated, that loss cannot be fully repaired. The way to reduce that unfairness is to make the proceedings time-bound.